BARAU V. M.C. BRETT & SONS MG. LTD.

• Pages: 133-136

BARAU V. M.G. BRETT & SONS NIG. LTD.



133

BARAU V. M.C. BRETT & SONS MG.

LTD.

5

ALHAJI SALISU BARAU

(Trading under the

APPELLANT

10

name & style of ALHAJI

SALISU BARAU & SONS

V

MESSRS CALEB BRETT AND

SONS (NIGERIA) LIMITED

RESPONDENT

15

SUIT NO. SC 400/67

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

BRETT,



J.S.C.

LEWIS,



J.S.C.

MADARIKAN,



J.S.C.

20

17th May, 1968.

Bailments - Goods in possession of bailee not lost but deteriorated in value -

Whether claim could be brought in detinue.

25

ISSUES:

1.

Whether a claim in detinue can be brought against a bailee in whose possession

the bailed goods deteriorated in value.

2.

For what purposes should an action in detinue be brought.

FACTS:

30





The plaintiff sued the defendant in detinue in the Kano High Court. The plain-

tiff, a trader in Kano, used to rail goods to Apapa Docks under waybills made out

to the defendant, a clearing and forwarding agent. The goods on arrival at Apapa,

were transferred from the Railway to the Nigeria Ports Authority for shipment

abroad, and held by them. These goods were by their very nature, difficult to ship

35





as they were looked on as being objectionable cargo. The goods were not ade-

quately looked after when held by the Nigeria Ports Authority, despite protests from

the defendant, and consequently they deteriorated greatly in the rain with the re-

sult that the defendant could not find shipping space for them. The plaintiff sued

the defendant solely in detinue and not in contract, or tort for negligence. The trial

40





judge dismissed the plaintiff's claim and he appealed to the Supreme Court sub-

mitting that the defendant was negligent in its conduct as bailee, and that it is

possible to claim not only for loss of goods by the bailee, but also for their loss

of value whilst in the hands of the bailee.

HELD:

45



1. A bailee must not be negligent in guarding the goods in bailment but if the sole

claim against him is that he was negligent in looking after the goods in his

possession and that because of that it is established not that the goods were

lost from his possession but that they had deteriorated in value, then the claim

cannot be brought in detinue. When an action is brought in detinue it is brought

50



for the specific recovery of personal chattels wrongfully detained from the

person entitled to the possession of them and for damages occasioned by their

wrongful detainment.