MANUEL V. EDEVU

• Pages: 300-304

300



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1968] N.S.C.C.

matter and in our view it was wrong to take objection on the letter which was the

notice to the Native Authority as all that was required of that was to set out the facts

upon which the plaintiff relied for his claim, not to show that it was a good cause

of action. We consider therefore it was wrong here for the learned trial Judge to

determine the plaintiff's claim by seeing whether the notice disclosed a good cause

of action as in our view the letter complied with the requirement of section 116(2)

as to stating the cause of action by setting out the facts on which the plaintiff re-

lied for his claim, and we accordingly ordered that the matter be remitted to the

High Court of the North West State for the hearing to proceed.

Appeal allowed: Matter remitted to



10

High Court for hearing.

MANUEL V. EDEVU



15

DR. C.K. MANUEL

V

JOSEPH EDEVU

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ADEMOLA,



J.S.C.

COKER,



J.S.C.

MADARIKAN,



J.S.C.

13th December, 1968.

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC/533/1966

20

25

Tort - Negligence - Motor vehicle - Driver with owner's consent driving vehicle



on owner's business or for owner's purposes - Whether owner vicariously



30

liable.

ISSUE:

1. Whether a vehicle owner is only liable for his driver's negligence where that

driver is his servant acting in the course of his employment.



35

FACTS:

The respondent as plaintiff in the Lagos High Court sued the appellant for

24,690:14s:0d as special and general damages for injuries he sustained when the

defendant's motor vehicle was negligently driven by the defendant or his servant



and collided with the plaintiff. The trial judge found that the defendant's vehicle



40

was negligently driven by the defendant's agent, as a result of which the plaintiff

sustained injuries; he accordingly entered judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of

£739:10s:Od with costs. The defendant appealed against the decision of the High

Court to the Supreme Court on the ground that the trial judge erred in law in hold-



ing the defendant liable when whoever drove the vehicle at the time of the acci-



45

dent was neither a servant nor an agent of the defendant.

HELD:

1.

It has often been supposed that the owner of a vehicle is only liable for the

negligence of the driver if that driver is his servant acting in the course of his



employment. That is not correct. The owner is also liable if the driver is his



50

agent, that is to say, if the driver is with the owner's consent, driving the car on

the owner's business or for the owner's purposes.