UKOMA V. NICOL

• Pages: 73-76

UKOMA V. NICOL



73

UKOMA V. NICOL

5

S.W. UBANI - UKOMA

V

10



G.E. NICOL

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT

ADEMOLA,



C.J.F.

BRETT,



F.J.

15



TAYLOR,



F.J.

15th February, 1962.

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. FSC 19/1961

Tort - Negligence - Damages - Special damage - Collision on highway - Motor

vehicle total loss - Used for some years prior to destruction - Measure of

20





damages - Chattel totally destroyed - Market value at time of destruction -

Reasonable estimate.

Duty of Appellate Court - Where trial Judge fails to make reasonable estimate.

25 ISSUES:

1.

Whether, in an action for negligence - the value of a used chattel which has

been destroyed is properly an item of special damage requiring special proof.

2.

How does a Court estimate the market value of a used chattel?

3.

What type of evidence will be considered sufficient for a trial Judge to make a

30



reasonable estimate of the value of a motor car at the time of its damage?

4.

How is the amount recoverable under an item of special damage for loss of an

irreparably damaged chattel determined by a trial Judge?

5.

What is the duty of an appellate court where the trial Judge failed to make an

assessment of damages on available evidence on the record?

35

FACTS:

The appellant obtained judgment against the respondent for general and spe-

cial damages suffered by reason of the negligent driving of the respondent caus-

ing a collision and resulting in the total loss of the appellant's car. Among the items

claimed as special damages by the appellant was a stated value of the car less a

40





3d per mile depreciation for 23,568 miles covered. In support of this item the ap-

pellant adduced in evidence (i) the original value of the car (ii) the mileage covered,

and (iii) the amount claimed less depreciation. He did not adduce evidence of the

market value of the car at the time of loss.

The trial Judge ruled that as there was no evidence before him of the market

45





value of the car at the time of loss, such evidence being (along with evidence of

the cost of hire of a substitute until a new car was procured less the scrap of the

damaged car) applicable in such circumstances, the appellant could not succeed

on this item of damage. The appellant appealed contending that on the evidence

before the trial Judge he should have made a reasonable assessment of this item

50





of damage and not just disallowed it. The respondent in reply argued that since

it was an item of special damage, the item should have been specially proved.