C.F.A.O Nigeria PLC V. I.k. John International Limited (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

BOLOUKUROMO MOSES UGO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Delta State of 29/10/2010 in Suit No W/57/2004.

The respondent as plaintiff at the trial Court claimed against the appellant (defendant in the lower Court) a declaration that appellants wrongful seizure and subsequent possession of the respondents vehicle with registration number EDO AR 642 is illegal, unconstitutional, null and void; an order of Court directing the return of the respondents vehicle to the respondent; N5,150,000 damages for the unlawful seizure, and N2,000,000 damages for its continuous detention and/or conversion of the aforesaid vehicle.

The appellant also counterclaimed for the sum of N489, 858.14 for the respondents failure to deliver some goods from Benin to Warri.

Respondents case was that the appellant engaged its Mercedes Benz lorry to convey its cartons of milk from Benin City to its warehouse in Warri Delta State; that while on its way to Warri with the goods, the vehicle ran into a pothole and some young men around that area its driver engaged to pull it away rather

1

helped themselves to the goods; the driver’s shout for help attracted some mobile policemen who helped to transfer the remaining cartons of milk into a passing vehicle and escorted him to the appellants warehouse; that on getting to Warri and upon explaining the incident to the appellant, its Warri Branch Manager mobilized some policemen who went in company of respondents said driver to recover the respondents vehicle. On getting back to the appellants premises it said appellant rather impounded the vehicle. It said it (respondent) reported the incident of the road to the police as well as the appellants action and the police made efforts to get the vehicle released but the appellant rebuffed it; that it was when it engaged counsel to write to appellant demanding the release of the vehicle that the appellant revealed in its reply that it was detaining the vehicle as security for respondent to pay for its missing 14 cartons of milk. All efforts to make the appellant release its vehicle having failed, it then took out this action, in the course of which it secured an order from the Court to release it. It said even with

2

the Courts order the appellant refused to release the vehicle and it was only when it served it a Notice of Consequences of Disobedience of the Court order that it reluctantly released it.

The appellant on the other hand claimed that it did not detain respondents vehicle and never admitted so; that rather it was respondents driver that voluntarily drove the vehicle to its premises as security for settling its said lost goods. It therefore counterclaimed for its lost goods as earlier indicated.

At the ensuing trial, the respondent called its driver, its Director and a policemen who was involved in efforts to secure the release the vehicle. The driver (PW1) testified of how the appellant detained respondents vehicle as averred by it and denied keeping respondents vehicle with appellant as security as claimed by appellant. The Director (PW2) gave evidence of the efforts respondent made to secure the release of the vehicle while the Policewoman, Woman Police Corporal Veronica Umoren (PW3) testified that appellant impounded respondents vehicle; that she went to the General Manager of the appellant for the

3

release of the vehicle and even took a statement, Exhibit E, from him but he refused to release the vehicle; that after going there several times for the same purpose, she stopped going.

In defence of the claim, the appellant after much prevarication called its Sales representative, one Mrs Florence Ogbomudiare (DW1), and Warri Branch Manager at the time of the incident, one Mrs Matilda Jadono (DW2), as its witnesses. Whereas the former testified that PW1 drove respondents vehicle to its premises for security for the missing goods and she would not remember if the respondents lawyers wrote for the release of the vehicle, DW2 admitted that the policewoman (PW3) approached appellant in the company of the respondents driver (PW1) to demand the release of the vehicle.