W.A.A.C. MG. LTD. & ANOR V. BEIJER

• Pages: 422-426

W.A.A.C. MG. LTD. & ANOR V. BEIJER



422

W.A.A.C. NIG. LTD. & ANOR V. BEIJER



5

1.

W.A.A.C. NIGERIA LIMITED

2.

HAYES

V

J.R. DE. BEIJER

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ADEMOLA,



C.J.N.

LEWIS,



J.S.C.

MADARIKAN,



J.S.C.

22nd December, 1969.

DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS

PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 596/1966

10

15

Negligence with aircraft - "Taking off' for the purpose of S.10(2) of Part IV

Schedule 1 of Colonial Civil Aviation (Application of Act) Order 1952 begins



20

when aircraft leaves standing position to depart.

ISSUE:

1. When does the process of taking off of an aircraft commence"

FACTS:



25

The plaintiff's aircraft was damaged due to the negligence of the defendants.

He sued for damages and. The plaintiff cross- appealed as he felt the trial Judge

misdirected himself in awarding the damages. The defendant appealed because

he felt the trial Judge was wrong in not dismissing the plaintiff's claim as negligence

was not proven.



30

HELD:

1. Under Section 10(2) of Schedule 1 Part IV to the Colonial Civil Aviation

(Application of Act) Order, the process of taking off commences from the time

the aircraft leaves its stationary position for the purpose of moving to the runway

from which it departs on a flight. The trial Judge was therefore right in holding



35

that the 1st defendant was liable.

2 There was no right of subrogation and the trial Judge was in error in deducting

any amount paid by the Insurance Company.

3 Apart from going wrong with the figures, it was difficult to see how the trial

Judge arrived at the figures he awarded since they were not itemised.



40

CASES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT.

1.

Blankley v. Godley and Another

(1952) 1 All E.R. 436.

2.

Dunn v. Campbell

4 Lloyd L.R. 36.

45

Sowemimo

for the Defendants/Respondents.

Bentley

for the Plaintiff/Respondent.

ADEMOLA, C.J.N.

(Delivering the Judgment of the Court): The appellants who

were the defendants in the High Court of the Benin Judicial Division have appealed



50

against the judgment of that court on 10th March, 1966, awarding damages of

£1,737:11:4d, to the plaintiff in a claim for £5,824:13:0d, against (1) the two

defendants for loss of use of and damage to the plaintiff's Piper aircraft sustained

by reason of the negligence of the 2nd defendant (Hayes) in the management and