A.G. Leventis Nigeria Plc. V. Chief Christian Akpu (2001)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

 D. MUHAMMAD, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the judgment of Hon. Justice B.A. Nwankwo of the Anambra State High Court sitting at Onitsha and dated 18th September, 1998. The judgment was in favour of the respondent before us who at the lower court was the plaintiff and against the present appellant being the defendant. Hereinafter, the parties will be referred to simply as appellant and respondent respectively.

The facts of the case upon which the appeal is built are as briefly and immediately stated.

The appellant’s claim against the defendant at the lower court were for the following reliefs:

(a) Two million naira (N2,000.000.00k) being the cost of replacement of the plaintiff’s said 500 SEL Mercedes Benz car destroyed by the defendant.

(b) Five hundred naira (N500) per day from 28th January 1993 till the date of judgment being cost of chartering vehicle for (his) the plaintiff’s movement/business and (c) One million naira (N1,000.000.00k) being general damages for emotional distress, financial and social disabilities.

Pleadings, having been ordered, were filed and exchanged. It was respondent’s case, gathered from the pleadings, that his Mercedes Benz car with registration No. LA 2138 MM, Engine No. 117-96112-002849 and Chasis No. 126-036-12-002795 was first taken to the appellant’s Onitsha office with an ordinary request for the replacement of the car’s manifold gasket for which a job card was created. This was on 19th October 1992. It took the appellant weeks to carry out the replacement and when the car was eventually returned, its state had worsened beyond the ordinary problem of exhaust manifold gasket.

On respondent’s complaint to the appellant about the deteriorating condition of the former’s vehicle, the latter dispatched one of its mechanics who recovered the vehicle. It was respondent’s further case that the appellant made more diagnosis on the vehicle and recommended the overhauling of the cylinder head. This was on 28/1/93 vide job card No. 135196. The state of the car worsened after this second repairs further degenerating into subsequent uncalled for series of endless repairs.

Resultantly, because of appellant’s incompetence and recklessness, the vehicle’s engine was totally damaged. The vehicle, respondent’s case it was also(sic), was dumped in appellant’s Onitsha office until 18th September, 1996 when respondent removed it to forestall further damage. On removal, the vehicle was without its complete engine, automatic gear box, starter-motor and air condition compressor with the hoses. Two waybills dated 18th September 1996 and 20/9/96 respectively conveyed the fact of this removal. The waybills were issued by the appellant to the respondent. They were relied upon at trial by the latter. The Onitsha workshop manager of the appellant and the respondent were signatories to the said waybills. Respondent who had to charter an alternative vehicle at a daily cost of N500 pleaded and sought to rely on all or any document establishing appellant’s negligence and incompetence as predicating the damage he suffered therefrom.

By paragraph 5 of its statement of defence, the appellant admitted that respondent’s vehicle was first taken to its premises on 17th October, 1992 but not for the simple re-placement of the car’s exhaust manifold gasket. Details of the repairs authorised to be conducted were as contained on job card No. 127886 which appellant pleaded and promised to rely upon at trial.

It was appellant’s case, therefore, that all repairs of respondent’s vehicle were conducted deligently and with all the professional skill and competence required and considered necessary for same.

It is pertinent to state that because of its non-production by the appellant a subsequent job card sought to be relied upon by the respondent was not admitted in evidence at trial. The relevant job car card was dated 28/1/93 with No. 135196.

At the end of trial, the trial court found for the respondent and entered judgment in the following terms:-

“(1) The defendant’s company shall pay to the plaintiff the sum of N1.5m being the cost of replacement of the plaintiff’s 500 SEL Mecedez Benz car engine damaged by the defendant’s company.