Worhi Dumuje (M) V. Stephen Iduozo & Anor. (1978)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ESO, J.S.C.

The action filed by the plaintiff (who is the appellant in this court, and, who hereinafter , will be referred to as the appellant), in the High Court of the Mid-Western State (now Bendel State) sitting at Warri, against the defendants (respondents in this court, and who hereinafter, will be referred to as the respondents), is for the return of two new mebea trucks which the appellant surrendered to the respondents at their request for use as Exhibits in an investigation of a charge of stealing made against the appellant, by one Palmer Sodje, or, in the alternative, the sum of N1580, value of the said mebea trucks. The appellant also claimed N220 damages for the wrongful detention of the said mebea trucks.

Pleadings were ordered and duly filed and the parties led evidence. The case of the appellant was that he deposited N1000 with Palmar Sodje, who traded under the style Star Enterprises, for the purchase of two cars. Palmer Sodje, whom the appellant believed to be a car dealer turned out, in fact, not to be one. On a threat by the appellant to report the matter to the police, Palmer Sodje gave him the mebea trucks, subject matter of this action, on an agreement that if he, Palmer Sodje, failed to refund to the appellant his money by 13th November, 1972, the appellant was to keep the mebea trucks as his.

However, what Palmer Sodje did was to report to the police that the appellant stole the trucks, and the two respondents, who were involved in the investigation of that complaint, in pursuance thereof, asked the appellant to deliver the trucks to the police at the police station. After the investigation, and it was clear to the police that the appellant did not steal the trucks, the respondents failed to deliver the trucks to the appellant but rather, delivered them to Palmer Sodje.

The respondents admitted being the investigators of the criminal complaint, but said that after the investigation, the Divisional Police Officer, one Lasisi Adeleti Akande, who gave evidence as the 4th defence witness, authorised the return of the trucks to Palmer Sodje on production by the latter of the keys and papers showing that Palmer Sodje was the owner of the trucks. Indeed, paragraph 13 of the Statement of Defence reads-

“The 1st and 2nd defendants aver that after the case against the plaintiff was refused false, the mebea trucks remained lying at the Police Station. When by the 10th January, 1973 Palmer Sodje on producing the keys and papers to show that he was the owner of the trucks saw the Divisional Police Officer to claim the trucks, the D.P.O. authorised their return to him.”

The learned trial Judge, in an unnecessarily lengthy judgment, held that two issues stood to be determined in the case. He said-

“After careful consideration of the evidence adduced in court by both sides in this suit and the submissions of both learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendants it would appear to me, that two main issues need to be determined before I can give judgment in this case. The two issues are as follows –

(i) who parted with the said two mebea trucks after the investigation of the allegation of stealing of the said mebea trucks against the plaintiff; and

(2) who is the owner of these said two mebea trucks in dispute.”

The learned Judge, on the first question, held that there was no evidence before him that the 1st and 2nd respondents parted on their own, with the two mebea trucks to any person. He went on –

“but the only evidence before this court is the one of the D.P.O. who said that he directed that the said two mebea trucks should be given to the 5th defence witness, on presentation of documents to establish the ownership of the said two mebea trucks by Palmer Sodje and on his satisfying himself that the two trucks belong to the company Palmer Sodje was representing. It was on the instructions of the D.P.O. that the police parted with the two trucks which were kept as potential exhibits.”

As regards the second issue, the learned trial Judge held that apart from his assertion that he was given these two trucks by Palmer Sodje, there was no other evidence from the appellant of this transaction being reduced into writing “or witnessed by any person or the ignition keys of the trucks given to the plaintiff.”

The complaint of the appellant, who is represented by Dr. Mowoe, in this court, is contained in his grounds of appeal to wit –