OKWA V. IWEREBOR & ORS.

• Pages: 73-75

OKWA V. IWEREBOR &

ORS.



73

Had there been no agreement in this case, we cannot see on any score that 45

days would have been an unreasonable period of notice, but by the agreement he

was entitled to one month's notice, which meant, as the notice was given on the

5



2nd of March, that he had in effect, as we have indicated, 59 days notice.

We cannot see moreover that :he learned trial Judge was shown to have been

wrong to have come to the conclusion he did after seeing the witnesses when he

held he believed the evidence of the defendant company rather than that of the

plaintiff as to what goods of the plaintiff were actually on the premises on the 16th

10



of April, 1962, so that in our view the plaintiff could not succeed on his claim for

special damages of some £1127:1:7d in this regard. The plaintiff is however, as

we have indicated, entitled to general damages for the wrongful ejectment 14 days

earlier than he should have been ejected, but as he was clearly on his own evi-

dence not making much use of the premises at the time as he was then in Lagos

15



these damages could only be nominal and we accordingly award him on this head

£100 damages.

The judgment of the High Court of Ijebu-Ode in Suit J/45/63 together with the

order as to costs is accordingly set aside and judgment is entered for the plaintiff

for £100 damages. The plaintiff is entitled to his costs in the High Court which we

20



assess at 85 guineas and in this Court which we assess at 64 guineas.

Appeal allowed.

25



OKWA V. IWEREBOR & ORS.

MAFIDOH OKWA



APPELLANT

30



V

IYERE IWEREBOR & OTHERS



RESPONDENTS

SUIT NO. SC 419/1966

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ADEMOLA,



C.J.N.

35



COKER,



J.S.C.

LEWIS,



J.S.C.

21st February, 1969.

CiYil Action - Practice and Procedure

Evidence - Witness dying before cross-examination - Whether evidence admissible.

ISSUE:

1. Whether the evidence of a witness who died after he gave evidence but before

45



being cross-examined is admissible in evidence.

FACTS:

The plaintiff brought an action for damage to crops in the Magistrate Court. A

witness died after he gave evidence but before he was cross-examined. The de-

fendant appealed. At the High Court, the Judge held that the Magistrate was wrong

50



to have relied on the evidence of a witness who was not cross-examined by the

defendants. The plaintiff then appealed to this Court.