Julius Berger Nigeria Plc. V. Godfry Nwagwu (2006)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

RHODES-VIVOUR, J.C.A.

By way of a writ of summons filed on the 7th day of December 1999, before the Kogi State High Court holden at Ajaokuta, in Suit No: KGS/AS/8/99, the respondent as plaintiff claimed from the appellant as defendant the sum of N5m compensation for the loss of his right eye.

Alternatively the same amount for wrongful termination of employment.

Pleadings were ordered in the suit and were duly settled, filed and exchanged. At the subsequent trial, the plaintiff testified and called one witness in support of his claim. The defendant called three witnesses. A total of twenty-one documents were admitted as exhibits.

The suit was tried at the Ajaokuta High Court presided over by Hon. Justice R. Okpanachi. On the 23rd of January 2003, the Learned trial Judge gave Judgment for the plaintiff awarding N135,000:00K as General damages.

It is necessary at this stage that I set out the facts as pleaded by the parties and the findings of the learned trial Judge.

The defendant is a well known Construction Company in Nigeria. The plaintiff worked in its butchery department from sometime in 1992 until his services were terminated on the 31st of August 1999. According to the plaintiff, on the 27th of May 1997 while he was cutting meat and bones in the butchery some pieces of bones accidentally entered his eyes and he sustained injury in his right eye. He went to the defendant’s clinic for treatment, but when the personnel in the clinic could not cure the injury to his eye, he had to go to an eye clinic at Ochadamu where he was referred to Lokoja General Hospital, where he was finally referred to the Ahmadu Bello University Teaching Hospital, Kaduna. He paid for his medical expenses.

On 31st August 1999 his services were terminated, according to him because of his eye injury. The plaintiff pleaded the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

According to the defendant, the plaintiff’s injury was not due to their negligence, nor was it in the course of his duty to them. The defendant further averred that the plaintiff was not admitted in defendant’s clinic as alleged and there was no referral letter to Ochadamn Eye clinic.

Finally, the termination of the plaintiff’s employment was not due to his eye injury but due to the fact that the butchery department was closed down and some of the staff laid off.

In the Judgment delivered on 23/1/03 the learned trial Judge believed that the plaintiff had the accident in the course of his employment, but did not believe it was due to the defendant’s negligence. In other words the defendant did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care.

On page 48 of the record of appeal, this is what the learned trial Judge said on negligence:

“On the issue of negligence however the plaintiff in paragraph 10 of his statement of claim stated as follows:

That the injury done to the plaintiff’s right eye during the course of his employment was no fault of the plaintiff but as a result of no safety device(s) provided by the defendant particularly for the nature of plaintiff’s job.”