Alhaji Wada Kusada V Sokoto Native Authority (1968)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

LEWIS, J.S.C.

The plaintiff in suit No. K/114/1967 appealed to this court against the decision of Holden J. In the Kano High Court on the l0th of February, 1968 striking out the suit without costs and on the 27th of November, 1968 in Kaduna we allowed the appeal with 46 guineas costs to the appellant and remitted the matter to the High Court of the North West State for hearing, and we now give our reasons for so doing. The plaintiffs writ dated the 23rd of December, 1967 was in the following terms:-

“The plaintiffs claim against the defendant is for the sum of £10,000 being special and general damages in connection with the plaintiff’s commercial vehicle Leyland Lorry No. LA 4833 which the defendant undertook to take care of since 5/1/66 at Sokoto and failed to do so and as a result of the defendants said failure the plaintiff lost the said lorry and the profit thereon. The defendant has refused to settle this claim despite repeated demands.”

but before filing that the following letter dated the 13th of November, 1967 (hereinafter in this judgment referred to as “the letter”) was sent to the Sokoto Native Authority:-

Date: 13/11/67

The Sokoto Native Authority, Sokoto.

Dear Sirs,

My Client Alhaji Wada Kusada

My above named client was involved in a motor accident with his lorry LA 4833 on 5/1/66 at Sokoto and was convicted and sentenced for a traffic offence on 26/5/66. He served his sentence at Sokoto and was discharged from prison on 26/6/67. Said from the date of the accident my client requested to be given time to go and remove his said lorry from the scene of accident or hand I over to someone else for safe keeping but his request was refused. He was however told that both his lorry and his goodself would be looked after by the Sokoto N.A.

When my client came out of the prison he went to the scene of the accident and found that the lorry had been completely dismantled and all its parts stolen.

The result is that my client’s only means of livelihood has gone and he is now destitute.

He claims that his lorry was worth £4,000 as at 5/1/66 and wants this paid to him by your NA. and also claims £25 per day as loss of use from that day.

This serves as 30 days notice to your N.A. to settle my client’s claim and if this is not done, I shall proceed to institute legal proceedings against your N.A.

Yours faithfully,