Western Atlas International (Nig) Ltd. V. Mr. Revelation Onu & Anor. (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ISTIFANUS THOMAS, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal is against the judgment of okechukwu .J Okeke, judge of the Federal High court, Yenagoa, Bayelsa State, delivered on 22nd December, 2005 in suit No.FHC/YNG/SC/448/2007 .

The present respondents as plaintiffs in a representative action, claimed against the present appellant who was then the defendant for the sum of N10,000.000 (Ten Million Naira) as special and general damages. The sum, of N7 million, was for the 28 mud-fish ponds containing 2000 fish per each pond, appeasement of Prawo Lake and Prawo Juju, as well as loss of source of drinking water. The respondent’s alleged damages were due to the numerous shooting of dynamites in their lake, ponds and their shrine from which the gods were annoyed or disturbed and they caused deaths to many members of the respondent’s family.

During the proceedings at the trial court, the respondents called one witness while the appellant did not call any witness to support their statement of defence. After hearing the party’s submissions, the trial court granted the respondents N3, million general damages, but dismissed the special damages.

Dissatisfied with the award of general damages against the defendant/appellant, it filled a notice of appeal on 9th January, 2006 containing four grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal shorn of their particulars are as follows:-

“Ground one:

The trial court acted under a mistake of law in awarding general damages to the respondents and thereby caused in justice to the appellant injustice.

Ground Two:

The quantum of damages awarded as general damages is manifestly excessive.

Ground Three:

The trial court erred in law in holding that the failure of the appellant to lead evidence in rebuttal of the purported admission of liability in Exhibit “C” dated 22nd Sept, 1997 is fatal to the appellant’s defence.

Ground Four:

Error in Law. The respondents have no common grievance on which to found a representative action.”

During the proceedings in this appellate court, both parties were given extension, of time to file and serve their respective briefs of judgment. The appellant filed its brief containing four issues for determination. They read as follows: