Alhaji Kabiru Abubakar & Anor. V. John Joseph & Anor (2008)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

A. OGUNTADE, J.S.C.

The 1st appellant in this appeal commenced his suit at the Minna High Court of Niger State claiming against the respondents special and general damages the breakdown of which is as stated hereunder:

“(a) Cost of replacing the plaintiffs now completely cannibalized vehicle N1,500,000.00

(b) Loss of use of vehicle from date of accident to date of filing this suit N1,008,000.00

(c) Cost of hiring another vehicle to convey goods from point of accident N15,000.00

(c) 9 months payment of watchmen guarding Plaintiff’s vehicle at N75.00 per day each N40,000.00

Total Special Damages N2,563,500.00

(e) General Damages N7,500,000.00

(f) Interest on the judgment sum at 25% from 9/12/91 to date of judgment

(g) Interest on the unpaid judgment sum at the Court rate of 10% (0.40117) from the date of judgment until the judgment debt is fully and finally paid.

(h) Such further or other order(s) as the court may deem fit and just to make in the circumstances of this case.”

The suit was founded on the negligence of the 1st respondent, the driver of the 2nd respondent. It was pleaded, that on 9/12/91, the 1st respondent negligently drove Fiat trailer registration No. LA 3906 belonging to the 2nd respondent and caused same to collide with the 1st appellant’s Fiat T3 trailer, registration No. LA 6086 MA.

The respondents filed their Further Amended Statement of Defence.

They denied the negligence ascribed by the 1st Appellant to the 1st respondent. They averred that the accident was caused by 1st appellant’s driver who was alleged to have negligently driven his vehicle in the course of overtaking another vehicle and in the process collided with the 2nd respondent’s vehicle. The respondents raised a counter-claim of four million, two thousand, three hundred and fourteen Naira, (N4,002,314.00) ; being general and special damages jointly against 1st appellant and his driver the 2nd appellant. It is relevant to say here that it was the counterclaim by the respondents that brought in the 2nd appellant as a party to the dispute.