International Messengers Nigeria Limited V. Engineer David Nwachukwu (2000)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ODUYEMI, J.C.A.

By a writ of summons issued at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory Abuja on 2nd December, 1993, the plaintiff/respondent in this case claimed against the defendant/appellant the sum of one Million Naira for the damage caused to him as a result of the negligence of duty of the defendant.

By his judgment delivered on 24th September, 1997, the learned trial Judge found for the plaintiff but held that there was contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. He awarded the sum of N100,000 in favour of the plaintiff. It is against that judgment that the defendant in the lower court has now appealed.

Originally, the appellant filed two grounds of appeal, which included the omnibus ground that the judgment is against the weight of evidence. However, by leave of this court granted on 2nd November, 1998 amended grounds of appeal which contained five grounds of appeal including the omnibus ground were filed.

Distilled from the 5 grounds in the amended grounds of appeal by the appellant are three issues thus:-

Whether the lower court was right when it found the appellant liable in negligence?. Subsumed in this issue is:-

Whether the lower court was right when it held that the appellant owed the respondent a duty of care to advice its Post Office Box before the 1st of November, 1998?.

(ii) Whether there was any evidence to sustain the award of damages made by the lower Court. Subsumed in this issue are two sub issues as follows:-

(a) Whether the lower court was right to have made an award for damages for lost opportunity when the evidence of injury led, is for mental and psychological shock?

(b) Whether the award for lost opportunity was based on mere speculation or a mere probability?.

(iii) Whether the lower court was right when it held that there was casual connection between the act of the appellant and the plaintiff missing the interview?”.

The appellant also filed an appellant’s reply brief.

The respondent in his brief has adopted the three issues for determination in this appeal as formulated by the appellant.

The parties at the hearing before this court adopted their respective briefs.