Benin Rubber Producers Co-operative Marketing Union Limited V. S. O. Ojo & Anor (1997)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

I. IGUH, J.S.C.

In the Benin Judicial Division of the High Court of former Bendel State of Nigeria, the plaintiff instituted an action against the 1st defendant claiming a declaration that the vehicle No. BD 803B in the defendant’s possession is the property of the plaintiff, return of the said vehicle and N80.00 damages per day for 85 days commencing from the 15th day of March, 1984 for detinue and/or loss of use of the vehicle. By the order of the trial court, the 2nd defendant was, on its application, joined as the 2nd defendant in the suit.

Following various amendments, the plaintiff’s final claims against the defendants jointly and severally are as follows –

“1. A declaration that vehicle with registration No. BD 803 B in the defendants’ possession and or control is the property of the plaintiff.

2. The return of the said vehicle with registration No. BD 803 B: and
3. N80.00 damages per day for 85 days commencing 15th day of March, 1984 when the plaintiff requested for the return of the said vehicle i.e. N6,800.00 for detinue and loss of use by the plaintiff and in addition N80.00 per day from the date of the issue of the writ of summons until judgment.”

Pleadings were ordered in the suit and were duly settled, filed and exchanged. The 2nd defendant in its Statement of Defence counter-claimed against the plaintiff as follows –

“31. WHEREOF the 2nd defendant counter-claims against the plaintiff as follows –

(a) A declaration that the purported sale of the Benin Rubber Producers Co-operative Marketing Union Ltd., Mercedes Benz Lorry Registration No. BD 803 B to the plaintiff on 20/1/84 at Benin City in Benin Judicial Division in null and void and of no effect.

(b) A declaration that the Benin Rubber Producers Cooperative Marketing Union Ltd., is the lawful owner of the said vehicle registration No. BD 803 B.

(c) To set aside receipt dated 20/2/84 issued to the plaintiff purporting to be evidence of sale of vehicle No. BD 803 B by one of his collaborators because of irregularities and fraudulent practices perpetuated by them.”

The said counter-claim was however not repeated either in the 2nd defendant’s amended Statement of Defence or in its further amended Statement of defence. There will be need for me to say more on this counter-claim in the course of this judgment.

The case for the plaintiff as pleaded and testified to is that he was re-elected as the President of the 2nd defendant Union on the 15th December, 1983. The Union had a Mercedes Benz lorry with registration number BD 803 B which its executive committee had decided to sell as it had become too expensive to maintain. Tenders were called for the proposed sale of this vehicle. On the 17th November, 1983 a subcommittee of the Union to evaluate the vehicle recommended that the price should be N6,000.00. Plaintiff, himself, offered to buy the vehicle and at a meeting of the executive committee on the 20th January, 1984, the lorry was sold to him at the price of N2,500.00. He duly paid this price and subsequently effected repairs to the vehicle to the tune of N2,132.00. He also effected the change of ownership of the vehicle per Exhibit F.

On the 16th February, 1984, the 1st defendant wrote a letter to the plaintiff, charging him with illegal removal of the vehicle and inviting him to return the same to the Union pending full investigations on the report. This advice the plaintiff promptly obeyed. He also appeared before the 1st defendant as directed and attended the inquiry instituted in connection with the sale of the vehicle. Prior to this inquiry, he had hired out the vehicle to P.W.3 on the 17th and 18th February, 1984 at the rate of N80.00 per day.

At the conclusion of the inquiry, the panel submitted its report which was dated the 16th March, 1984. It recommended that the vehicle be returned to the plaintiff. The 1st defendant after a study of this report rejected the panel’s recommendation and communicated his decision to the Union on the 6th April, 1984. This decision was to the effect that the sale was irregular and that the vehicle was not to be returned to the plaintiff, Consequently the 2nd defendant held on to the vehicle and refused to return the same to the plaintiff. It was as a result of this development that the plaintiff instituted this action.

The defendants in their own defence stated that although it was recommended that the vehicle be sold for N6,000.00, they later got to know that the plaintiff who was the president of the 2nd defendant Union bought it for only N2,500.00.