ANGLO-CANADIAN CO. LTD. V. ALOKOLARO & CO.

• Pages: 157-158

ANGLO-CANADIAN 00. LTD. V. ALOKOLARO & CO.



157

5

ANGLO-CANADIAN CO. LTD. V. ALOKOLARO &

CO.

ANGLO-CANADIAN CEMENT LTD.



APPELLANTS

10



V.

0. ALOKOLARO & CO.



RESPONDENTS

SUIT NO. SC 375/1965

15

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

BRETT,



Ag.C.J.N

.

COKER,



J.S.C.

LEWIS,



J.S.C.

12th May, 1967

20

Evidence - Ownership of Vehicle - Appearance of defendant's film's name

on it - if evidence of firm's ownership.

ISSUE:

1. Whether the appearance of a firm's name on a vehicle without more is evidence

of the firm's ownership of the vehicle.

FACTS:

The defendants were a partnership consisting at the material time of two part-

ners registered under the Road Traffic Act as the owners of a lorry. The plaintiffs

whose lorry was in collision with the lorry sued the defendants for damages for

negligence. To prove ownership the plaintiffs sought to rely on evidence merely

that the partnership name was painted on the vehicle. The trial judge found that

only the word 'Alokolaro', not the full name of the partnership, appeared on the

vehicle and he made an order of non-suit on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed

to prove that the lorry was the property of the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs appealed.

HELD:

Even if it was the full partnership name that appeared on the vehicle, that would

not be evidence against the defendants unless it was shown that it was they who

caused it to be placed there.

CASE REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT:

1.

Green v. Berliner

[1936] 2 K.S. 477, 479, [1936] 1 All E.R. 199.

G.L. Impey

for the Appellants.

No appearance for the Respondents

BRETT, Ag. C.J.N.

(Giving the Reasons for the Judgment of the Court):- In this

case the trial judge made an order of non-suit in the plaintiffs' claim for damages

for negligence on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that lorry No.

LD 4877, which had been involved in a collision with a lorry belonging to the

50





plaintiffs, was the property of the defendants. The defendants were a partnership

consisting at the material time of two partners and it was proved that one of the

two partners was registered under the Road Traffic Act as the owner of the vehicle.

25

30

35

40

45