MOMOH & ANOR. V. OLOTU

• Pages: 99-104

MOMOH & ANOR. V. OLOTU



99

The submission that the plaintiffs were being paid compensation twice over is

in our view untenable. Although the plaintiffs had claimed for loss of earnings

under the head of special damages it would be seen from the judgment that the

learned trial Judge made no award in their favour for the claim under that head.

5



We agree with and accept the argument that it is wrong to award damages twice

over and that where a plaintiff has been compensated under one head of dam-

ages for a particular injury it is improper to award him damages in respect of the

same injury under another head (see per Unsworth, F.J. in

Onantiga v. Micho &

Co. (1961) All

N.L.R.

255., 324 at p.328). The judgment appealed against in this

10



case however does riot give double compensation in respect of any particular

item of injury and we hold that the award of general damages in this case is not

improper.

The defendants have also complained about the costs of 500 guineas awarded

against them by the learned trial Judge. It was submitted on their behalf by learned

15



counsel that the costs awarded were manifestly excessive and learned counsel for

the plaintiffs himself told us that whilst he would be satisfied with a reasonable

amount as costs he would not defend the obviously high award of 500 guineas.

In the result the appeal is allowed only with respect to the amount of general

damages awarded and the costs and we would vary the amount of £7,500 awarded

20



under that head by substituting therefore the amount of £4,000 so that instead of

the total amount of £8,103 awarded against the defendants the total amount will

now be £4,603. With respect to tF e quantum of costs awarded in the High Court,

this is also varied by reducing the amount to 200 guineas and setting aside the

order for the payment of 500 guineas. As the appeal had failed on the issue of

25



liability and succeeded only on the measure of damages and costs, we think that

in the circumstances the proper thing to do with respect to the costs of appeal is

to make no order thereon.

Appeal allowed in part.

MOMOH ANOR. V. OLOTU

AMUSA MOMOH AND ANOR



APPELLANT

V

JIMO OLOTU



RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 410/67

40

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ADEMOLA,



C.J.

COKER,



J.S.C.

MADARIKAN,



J.S.C.

UDOMA,



J.S.C.

45 FATAI-WILLIAMS, J.S.C.

3rd April, 1970

Courts - High Court - Jurisdiction - Chieftaincy - Where there is a registered

declaration as to a particular chieftaincy - Whether jurisdiction of the court is

50



ousted.

30

35