Ikare Community Bank (Nigeria) Ltd. V. Bola Ademuwagun (2004)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

NGWUTA, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Ondo State High Court, Ikare Judicial Division, in suit No. HIK/20/96. The judgment was delivered on 23rd September, 1999.

The respondent who was the plaintiff in the court below was the manager of the appellant bank. The bank was the defendant in the lower court. The respondent’s appointment as the manager of the bank was terminated by the appellant, sometime in October, 1995. Before the termination of his appointment, the respondent on 18/3/95, in his capacity as the Manager of the appellant bank, attended a meeting of the Board of Directors of the bank. At the said meeting, the alleged indebtedness of the respondent to the appellant was raised. This led to the seizure of the respondent’s Peugeot saloon car registered as No. OD 515 KA by members of the appellant’s Board of Directors, who handed the car over to the police at Ikare Akoko, Ondo State for safe-keeping pending the respondent’s refund of the money he owed the appellant. Following the refusal of the appellant to return the respondent’s car, the respondent issued a writ of summons on which were endorsed the following claims against the appellant bank:

“The plaintiffs claim against the defendant is for the delivery up of the plaintiff’s Peugeot 504 saloon car with registration No. OD 515 KA or N150,000.00 the value thereof with the items inside the said car as here under listed viz: –

1. A panasonic M3000 video recording camera valued – N150,000.00
2. A tape recorder (radio cassette type valued N6,000.00
3. Five audio cassettes valued – N500.00
4. One copy of living bible valued – N800.00
5. A video sender valued – N1,000.00
6. one complete spare tyre valued – N3,000.00
7. A wheel spanner valued – N350.00
8. A jack valued – N900.00
9. Two men suits valued – N30,000.00
10. Two complete agbada and buba with caps valued N88,000.00
11. Two pairs of shoes valued – N10,000.00

or N291,000.00 the value thereof which the defendant illegally seized from the plaintiff at Ikare-Akoko on 18th March, 1995 and wrongly detained and still detains from the plaintiff.

By reason whereof the plaintiff has suffered special and general damages. And the plaintiff claims:

1. Delivery up of the said saloon car or its value N150,000.00 with all the items inside it as listed supra or their valued N291,050.00.
2. Damages for unlawful seizure and detention of the said car with the items inside it – N20,000.00

Special Damages

1. Payment of the value of the said car as an alternative for the delivery up of the car – N150,000.00.
2. payment of the value of the said items inside the said car as an alternative to their delivery up – N291,000. 00.
3. N500.00 per day for loss of use of the said car from 18/3/95 when the car was seized until judgment is delivered in this case. ”

Pleadings were duly filed and exchanged. The claim endorsed on writ was reproduced in paragraph 23 of the statement of claim. In its amended statement of defence the appellant denied the respondent’s claim. It was the appellant’s case that the respondent, after removing his bag and other items from the car, surrendered the car to the appellant, promising to retrieve it back after paying what he owed the appellant. The respondent filed what he tagged: “reply to statement of defence” which merely repeated issues already joined by the parties.

Trial opened on 2/2/99. The respondent testified and called two other witnesses and closed his case. The appellant called four witnesses and rested its case. Learned Counsel for the parties addressed the court and in a reserved judgment delivered on 23/9/99, the court (Ogundare, J. presiding) entered judgment for the respondent. The court, at page 94 of the records said:

“Since, I have allowed a claim of N73,000.00 as damages for its detention, the claim of N200,000.00 as damages for unlawful seizure is hereby rejected. On the whole, I make the following awards in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant Bank.

1. The delivery of OD 515 KA to the plaintiff in a workable condition after necessary repairs or its value being N150,000.00.
2. A sum of N29I,050.00 being the value of the items contained in the car.
3. N73,000.00 for loss of use for the detention of the car from 18/3/95 up to March, 1999 at N50.00 per day.

This shall be the judgl11ent of this court. A cost of N3,000.00 is awarded in favour of the plaintiff. ”

The appellant was aggrieved and appealed the judgment to this court on five grounds. The five grounds of appeal shorn of their particulars, are reproduced hereunder:

“1. The learned trial Judge erred in law, when he ordered the appellant to pay the sum of N150,000.00 to the respondent or return his car “after it had been repaired” when there was no such claim before the court.

2. The learned trial Judge erred in law, when he held that the respondent proved his ownership to the various articles listed as Nos. 1-11 in paragraph 24 of the statement of claim by merely averring that he owned them.
3. The learned trial Judge erred in law, when he held in effect that the defence witnesses supported the case of the respondent that the car was illegally detained.
4. The learned trial Judge erred in law, in not evaluating or adequately evaluating the totality of evidence before it and thereby came to a wrong conclusion.
5. The judgment was against the weight of evidence.”

Consistent with the rules of the court, the parties, by their counsel filed and exchanged briefs of argument.