OSHINJINRIN & ORS. V. ELIAS & ORS.

• Pages: 95-99

OSHINJINRIN & ORS. V. ELIAS & ORS.



95

owned by Lukugba their common ancestor. The plaintiffs say that the land is still

part of his family land. The defendants alleged that there was a partition as a re-

sult of which their own sub-branch took the land in dispute absolutely. Surely the

burden of proving the partition is squarely on them. The defendants called no evi-

5



deuce at the trial and the provisions of section 136 of the Evidence Act must apply.

The result is that the Judge was entitled to find as he did that the ownership of the

land in dispute still remains in the Lukugba family which of course includes the

Pabiekun sub-branch.

This is the point on which the appeal before us turns and we are bound to hold

10



that the Judge came to the correct conclusion on the facts given in evidence be-

fore him. The appeal fails and it is dismissed. The appellants will pay the costs

of the appeal fixed at 32 guineas.

Appeal dismissed.

15

OSHINJINRIN & ORS. V. ELIAS & ORS.

20

OSHINJINRIN AND OTHERS

V

ALHAJI ELIAS AND OTHERS

25

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

COKER,



J.S.C.

MADARI KAN,



J.S.C.

UDOMA,



J.S.C.

3rd April, 1970.

30

APPELLANTS

RESPONDENTS

SUIT NO. SC 63/1968

Remedies - Damages - Special dwnages - Principles of assessment.

Damages - Judge commenting on evidence - comments not justified as they were

not supported by evidence - Comments raising judges estimation of Plaintiff's

35



damages - Effect on amount of damages awarded.

ISSUES

1.

What principles are used in the assessment of special damages?

2.

In the assessment of general damages, what is the effect of a Judge making

40



use of expressions in his judciment which were not supported by the written

evidence before him?

FACTS:

The plaintiff's claim against the defendants was for special and general dam-

ages because the defendants had wrongfully entered the plaintiff's bus terminal

45



and caused damage therein. The defendants were found liable on the claims and

judgment was entered for the plaintiffs with costs. The defendants appealed to

this court on the grounds that the special damages awarded were not strictly proved

and that the trial Judge took into consideration matters which were not relevant or

supported by evidence as a basis for his assessment of general damages.

50

HELD:

1. The rule that special damages must be strictly proved applies to cases of tort.

In effect the rule requires anyone asking for special damages to prove strictly

that he did suffer such special damages as he claimed. What is required is

that the person claiming should establish his entitlement to that type of damages