A-G., OYO STATE V. FAIRLAKES HOTEL LID. & ANOR.
| Pages | 299-325 |
A-G., OYO STATE V. FAIRLAKES HOTEL LTD. & ANOR.
299
A-G., OYO STATE V. FAIRLAKES HOTEL LTD. & ANOR.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF OYO STATE
V
FAIRLAKES HOTELS LTD. & ANOR.
SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
APPELLANT
RESPONDENT
SUIT NO. SC 169/1986
OBASEKI,
NNAMANI,
UWAIS,
KAWU,
BELGORE,
AGBAJE,
WALT,
1st
December, 1989
J.S.C.
J.S.C.
J.S.C.
J.S.C.
J.S.C.
J.S.C.
J.S.C.
Evidence - Admissibility of documental)
,
evidence - S. 90 Evidence Act.
Practice and Procedure - Supreme court - Appeals - Jurisdiction - damages - general and
special - award of
ISSUES:
1.
Whether a document which has been admitted under the Provisions of S. 90(1)
of the Evidence Act should be regarded as a proof of its content. If the content
of the document tendered in evidence was not challenged under cross
examination.
2.
Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear an Appeal from the Federal
High Court.
3.
How is special damages proved?
4.
How is general damages awarded?
FACTS:
The plaintiff company sued the defendants at the Federal High Court Lagos jointly
and severally for damages in the sum of N5m suffered by the plaintiff for breach of
agreement between the parties in 1977 and 1978 to operate an international hotel in
lbadan.
The trial Judge found for the plaintiff on the issue of liability and awarded it
damages of N65,000.00
The second and third defendant appealed against the whole decision on the
grounds
inter alia
that the decision was against the weight of evidence.
The plaintiff on the other hand also dissatisfied with the Judgment appealed on
the grounds
inter aria
that the estimated loss of profits which the plaintiff could have
earned in five years be increased to N1,913,800.00 as general damages.
The second and third defendants withdrew their appeal. The Court of Appeal
varied the award of damages by disallowing the N65,000.00 awarded at the trial court
and substituting an award of 141,913,800.00 as loss of profit.
The second and third defendants dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of
Appeal which increased the award of damages from N65,000.00 to N1,913,800.00
appealed to the Supreme Court.
300
NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES
[1989] 3 N.S.C.C.
HELD
1.
That as regards documents admitted by consent or by the court in the absence
of their maker under S.90 of the Evidence Act, the court still has a duty to consider
the weight to be attached to such documentary evidence before coming to the
conclusions as to whether or not it establishes the facts stated therein. In this 5
case by putting Exhibit
B
(the feasibility report) only in evidence and nothing more
the plaintiff has not proved its entitlement to the anticipated profits claimed by it.
2.
That s.213 of the 1979 constitution gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction to the
exclusion of any other court of law in Nigeria to hear and determine appeals from
the Court of Appeal. It is an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal, 10
although an appeal from the decision of a state High Court or a Federal High
Court to it that will lie to the Supreme Court. In this case what is being dealt with
is the decision of the Court of Appeal. Special damages consist of items of loss
which have to be particularised or specified in the plaintiff's pleading in order that
he may be permitted to give evidence thereof and recover them. Thus in this case 15
the claim as to anticipated profit is a special one which must be established by
evidence.
4. That general damages are such as the jury may give when the judge cannot point
out any measure by which they are to be assessed except the opinion and
judgment of a reasonable man.
20
[As to
Admissibility of Documentary Evidence
see:
Etim & Ors. v. Ekpe & Anoi:
(1983) N.S.C.C. Vol. 14 86.]
[As to
Award of Special Damages
see:
25
1.
Oshinjinrin & Ors. v. Elias & Ors.
(1970) N.S.C.C. (Vol. 6) 95.
2.
Incar (Nig.) Ltd. v. Benson Transport Ltd.
(1975) N.S.C.C. Vol. 9 115.]
[As to
Award of General Damages
see:
1.
Oshinjinrin
&
Ors. v. Elias & Ors.
(1970) N.S.C.C. Vol.6 95;
30
2.
Armels Transport Ltd. v. Transco Ltd.
(1974) N.S.C.C. Vol. II 211.]
CASES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT
1.
Obembe v. Wemabod Estates Ltd.
(1977) 5 S.C.115 p. 139 - 40
2.
Messrs Dumez (Nig.) Ltd. v. Patrick Ogboli
(1972) 1 All N.L.R. pt. 1 241.
35
3.
Chief Odumosu v. A.C.B. Ltd.
(1976) 11 S.C.55.
4.
Oshinjinrin & Ors. v. Alhaji Elias & Ors.
(1970)
1
All N.L.R. 153.
5.
Abel Boshali v. Allied Commercial's Exporters Ltd
All N.L.R. (pt. 4) 917
6.
Okeke v. Obidife
(1965) 1 All N. L. R. 50
7.
lgbodim v. Obiaruke
(1976) 9 - 10 S.C. 179.
40
8.
Sodimu v. N.P.A.
(1975) 4 S.C. 15.
9.
Obanor v. Obanor
(1976) 2 S.C. 1.
10.Seismograph Services Ltd. v. B.E. Onokpasa
(1972) 1 All N.L.R. 345.
11.A1h. A.W. Akibu v. Opeleye & Anor
1947) 11 S.C. 189 at 196 and 197.
12.
Prehn v. The Royal Bank of Liverpool
(1870 L. R. 5 EXCH. 92
45
13.
Susequentharma
(1925) A.C. 655 at 661
14.
Stroms Brukes Aktce Bolog v.Hutchison
15.Okechukwu v. Okafor
(1961)All N..R. 685 at p. 692
16.
Okulaja v. Haddad
(1973) 11 S.C. 357 at p. 362.
17.Agbaje v. National Motors
(1971) 1 U.I.L.R. 219.
50
18.Dorbay v. Mohaber
(1967) 2 A.E.R. 760.
19.
Nwabuoku v. Otiti
(1961) All N.L.R. 487 at 490
20.Ayeni v. Dada
(1978) 3 S.C. 35 at 61.
21.Ogunsanya v. Taiwo
(1970) 1 All N.L.R. 147 at 152.
22.Akinola v. Oluwo
(1962) 1 All. N.L.R. 224
23.
Uwa printers v. Investment Trust Ltd.
(1988) 5 N.W.L.R. 112
To continue reading
Request your trial