OKPIRI & ORS V. JONAH & ORS

• Pages: 84-87

84



OKPIRI & ORS V. JONAH & ORS.

As his privilege as a licensee could only be withdrawn by giving him 30 days no-

tice under the agreement, it would appear the notice which was served upon him

late was unreasonable to the extent of the seven days delay and he would be en-

titled to damages on the principle of

Minister of Health v. Bellotti and Holiday

(1944)

1

All E.R. 238. The damages, it was agreed, would be for loss of earnings for

the

seven days prior to the 7th August, 1956, the date he received the notice. On the

calculation of the learned trial Judge when he awarded £75 for half a month's earn-

ing, it would appear that all the Respondent is entitled to is the sum of £37-10s-Od.

In view of the foregoing this appeal succeeds.

I would allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment of the learned trial Judge

in the Court below, and will substitute for it an order entering judgment in favour

of the plaintiff for £37-10s-Od and 15 guineas costs and this will be the judgment

of the Court. The Court below to carry out this order. The appellant is entitled to

costs of the appeal in this Court which is assessed at 45 guineas.

Brett, F.J.: I

concur.

Unsworth, F.J.: I

concur.

Appeal allowed: Judgment of trial

Court set aside and Judgment for

the Respondent for loss of

earnings for seven days

substituted.

OKPIRI & ORS V. JONAH & ORS.

CHIEF

JAMES OKPIRI & OTHERS



APPELLANTS

(For the Agalaga Family Adadah, Odual)

V

CHIEF IGONI JONAH & OTHERS



RESPONDENTS

(For Ogboloma Town, Odual)

SUIT NO. FSC 87/1960

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT.

ADEMOLA,



C.J.F.

BRETT,



F.J.

UNSWORTH,



F.J.

29th March, 1961.

Appeal -

in Civil Cases - Order for retrial; Reason: Proper advantage not taken

of seeing and hearing the witnesses

-

- Practice in appeals on facts

Practice and Procedure - Judgment - Inadequate or insufficient appraisal of

evidence - No findings of fact on sundo

,

issues raised.

ISSUES:

1.

When will an appellate court interfere with findings of fact of the trial court?

2.

Whether there is a distinction for the purposes of appeal between the finding

of a specific fact and a finding of fact which is really an inference drawn from

the facts specifically found.

3.

What is the attitude of the appeal court to inferences drawn from facts

specifically found.