Mr Paul Owolabi Ogunsakin V. Edu Local Government Area, Kwara State & Ors. (2011)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ITA .G. MBABA J.C.A, (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The Appellant was the Claimant at the lower Court in the suit No. KW/179/2008 presided over by I.A. YUSUF J., of Kwara State High Court. The judgment of the Lower Court, delivered on 6/10/10, was actually in favour of the Appellant, whereof he was awarded the sum of one hundred and Fifty thousand Naira N150,000.00 as aggravated and exemplary damages to be paid by the 3rd Defendant, who was held liable for the damages caused to the Appellant’s vehicle, as a result of the accident involving the Appellant’s vehicle (truck) and the vehicle driven by the 3rd Defendant/Respondent), which vehicle the Appellant claimed belonged to the 1st Defendant/Respondent.

The trial Court had absolved the 1st and 2nd Respondents of any liability as well as refused the special damages claimed. This appeal is against that part of the decision of the trial court absolving 1st and 2nd respondents of liability and awarding only N150,000.00 to the Appellant as damages.

A brief facts of the case show that, on 13/8/2008, Appellant’s Mitshibishi Canter Truck, with Registration number LAGOS, XM 520 BDG, left Ado Ekiti, Ekiti State, on charter, for Jebba in Kwara State. On getting to a point around Bode – Saadu, Moro Local Government, a Honda Saloon car, with Registration Number KWLG 02 LAF driven by the 3rd Respondent and belonging to the 1st Respondent, veered off its lane and ran into the Claimant’s vehicle, causing severe damage to the vehicles and injuring the occupants, The 2nd Respondent was the Chairman of the 1st ,Respondent, at the time of the accident, but was later removed and the 3rd Respondent, who was the vice Chairman at the time of the accident, then took over as the Chairman of the 1st Respondent.

At the close of evidence, the trial Court held that the 3rd Respondent was negligent and his dangerous driving caused the accident that resulted in the damage, but that the 1st and 2nd Respondents were not vicariously liable for the action of the 3rd Respondent, based on a letter (Exhibit E) which claimed that the vehicle which the 3rd Respondent drove had been monetized to him, and the 3rd Respondent also admitted the claim.

Appellant filed his Notice and Grounds of appeal on 29/11/2010 and raised three (3) grounds of appeal, as follows:

(1) The Lower Court erred in Law when it held that 1st Respondent is not liable for damages done to the Appellant’s vehicle by the 3rd Respondent while driving the 1st Respondent’s vehicle

Particulars of Error:

(i) The 1st Respondent Local Government owns the vehicle driven by 3rd Respondent which had an accident and damaged appellant’s vehicle

(ii) The 3rd Respondent is the vice chairman of 1st Respondent

(iii) 3rd Respondent who asserted that the vehicle was monetized to him did not show that the ownership had been transferred to him

(2) The Lower Court erred when it held that the Appellant failed to prove reliefs (a) and (b) of the statement of claim as required by Law.

Particulars of Error

(i) The claimant claims (sic) the purchase price of the vehicle and tendered the purchase documents.