ODULAJA V. HADDAD

• Pages: 614-618

ODULAJA V. HADDAD

614

ODULAJA V. HADDAD

E.K. ODULAJA

V

10 A.F. HADDAD

ΣΥΠΡΕΜΕ ΧΟΥΡΤ ΟΦ ΝΙΓΕΡΙΑ

ΕΛΙΑΣ,

C.J.N.

SOWEMIMO,

J.S.C.

15

IRIKEFE,

J.S.C.

28th November, 1973

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 280/1973

Land Law - Claim for damages for trespass.

20

Tort- Trespass - Nuisance - Assault - Order for injunction - Damages.

ΙΣΣΥΕ:

1. In what way is the nature of proof given in a case, to be dictated.

ΦΑΧΤΣ:

25

The plaintiffs instituted an action for damages for nuisance and assault, and an

order of injunction against the defendant. Judgment was given for the plaintiff in the

High Court and damages of £1,268:16:6d were awarded.

The defendants appealed to the Western State Court of Appeal against the deci-

sion. This appeal to the Western State Court of Appeal against the decision was

30 allowed to the extent of disallowing the sum of £900 awarded as rent in the court

below. On further appeal by the plaintiff against that portion of the judgment.

ΗΕΛ∆:

1. The nature of proof in a given case most be dictated by the peculiar

circumstances of the available evidence.

35 2. The defendant did not produce any evidence in rebuttal of the plaintiff's

assessment of his loss of rent.

3. The trial Judge was right in his quantification of the loss on the available evidence.

4. The Western State Court of Appeal was in error in setting aside the award of £900

as rent for the 30 months.

40

ΧΑΣΕΣ ΡΕΦΕΡΡΕ∆ ΤΟ ΙΝ ϑΥ∆ΓΜΕΝΤ:

1.

Αδελ Βοσηαλι ϖ. Αλλιεδ Χοµµερχιαλ Εξπορτερσ Λτδ.

(1961) 4 All N.L.R. 917.

2.

Στροµσ Βρυκσ Ακτιε Βολογ ϖ. Ηυτχηισον

(1905) A.C. 515.

3.

Βριτιση Τρανσπορτ Χοµµισσιον ϖ. Χουρλεψ

(1956) A.C. 185.

45 4.

Ρατχλιφφε ϖ. Εϖανσ

(1892) 2 Q.B. 524.

5. Γαϕαπατιραϕυ ϖ. Τηε Ρεϖενυε ∆ι /ισιοναλ Οφφιχερ, ςιζαγαπαταµ

(1939) A.C. 302,

312.

6.

Ελεµο & Ορσ. ϖ. Μολαδε & Ορσ.

S.C. 264/68 of 27/11/70.

7.

Μιλλερ ϖ. Μινιστερ οφ Πενσιονσ

(1947) 2 All E.R. 372, 374.

50

Βαψο Οδυωολε

for Appellant.

Βολα λγε

for Respondent.