Yetunde Oni & Ors v. L.C.C. Caretaker Committee & Ors (1974)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ELIAS, C.J.N.

In suit No.LD.626/71 Dosunmu J. in the High Court of Lagos delivered judgment in favour of the Plaintiffs on October 30, 1972 in which he made the following awards:

1st Plaintiff 204(pounds)

2nd Plaintiff 180(pounds)

3rd Plaintiff 1,014(pounds)

6th Plaintiff 432(pounds)

7th Plaintiff 288(pounds)

He thereby dismissed the claims of the other Plaintiffs. The writ of summons was endorsed as follows:

“The Plaintiffs’ claim against the Defendants jointly and severally is for10,000(pounds)

special and general damages suffered by the Plaintiffs from the negligence of the 2nd Defendant in the driving and management of the 1st Defendants’ Bus No. L.C. 4719 under scope and authority of his employment as servant and/or agent of the said 1st Defendants whereby the late Esther Oni was killed along Apapa Road Ebute-Metta on the 29th day of May, 1971. The Defendants have failed and/or neglected to pay in spite of repeated demands.”

From this judgment, the plaintiffs/appellants, appealed to this Court on 8 grounds all of which are, however, in respect of the quantum of damages, the defendants having accepted liability for the negligence of the 2nd defendant, their driver, in consequence of which the deceased, Esther Oni, aged 29, was killed along Apapa Road, Ebute-Metta on May 29, 1971.

The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the main complaint is that the damages awarded by the learned trial judge are inadequate and manifestly too small having regard to the evidence, especially in the light of the financial loss proved to have been suffered by the plaintiffs. He cited Zik’s Press Limited vs. Alvan Ikoku 13 WACA 188 in support of his contention that the court will interfere in the award of damages made by the trial judge if the appellants can show that the trial judge had either proceeded upon a wrong principle of assessment or that the award was an erroneous estimate of the loss suffered by the plaintiffs. He pointed out that the learned trial judge made a parsimonious assessment of the financial worth and activities of the deceased as described by the various plaintiffs and their witnesses. For example, the learned trial judge had said:

“For all these all the witnesses who gave evidence for the plaintiffs were unanimous that she was making a net profit of 250(pounds) per month. She owned no house of her own. She had no bank account of any kind, and it was said that at her death, an amount less than 300(pounds)

was all she had left too small for letters of administration. But it was suggested that all this happened because the deceased was discharging heavy financial obligations to her family, I would rather think it happened because she did not have the lot now being claimed for her. The husband testified to this her private business activity. Her aunt, Alhadja Jose also testified But no one with whom she engaged in this business either as a buyer or seller came forward. No documentary evidence was available to substantiate this extra business activity. For my part, I think the evidence as to the business activity of the deceased and the earnings is exaggerated.”