Chudi Verdical Company Limited V. Ifesinachi Industries Nigeria Limited & Anor (2018)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Enugu Division, delivered on the 20th day of May 2009, allowing the appeal of the respondents from the decision of the High Court of Anambra State in suit No: A/25/2003 dated the 3rd day of February 2005. The brief facts relevant to the appeal are as hereinunder stated.

By paragraph 14 of its statement of claim, the plaintiff/appellant’s claims against the defendants/respondents jointly and severally is for:-

“(1) The sum of N13,532,464.00k (Thirteen million, five hundred and thirty two thousand, four hundred and sixty four naira) being special and general damages arising from the damage and loss occasioned to the Plaintiff by the defendants.

(2) Cost of the action.

The defendants/respondents denied liability in their statement of defence.

With pleadings filed and exchanged, the case proceeded to trial.

The plaintiff/appellant’s case is that the negligent act of the defendants caused damage to its petrol service station. The doctrine of Res Ipsa loquitur is also asserted in the alternative.

1

The case of the defendants/respondents, on the other hand, is that armed robbers over powered the 2nd defendant/respondent at Amansea, took over control of and drove the Mercedes marcopolo bus to and after robbing the passengers set the vehicle ablaze at the appellants petrol service station.

At the end of trial, including addresses of counsel, the Court entered judgment in favour of the plaintiff/appellant.

The instant appeal is informed by the decision of the lower Court allowing the defendants/respondents appeal from the trial Court’s decision.

Having earlier filed and exchanged their briefs of argument, parties identified, adopted and relied on the briefs at the hearing of the appeal. At page 6 of the appellant’s brief settled by O.R. Ulasi SAN, the two issues distilled as having arisen for the determination of the appeal read:-

“(1) Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in their decision that the plea of res ipsa loquitur by the appellant and the reliance on same by the trial Court were both misconceived