Abdul L. Jaber V. Mohamed K. Basma (1952)
LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal
Tort—Trespass—Special Damages for goods lost—Need to prove—General damages—Serious inconvenience.
Practice and Procedure—Judgment affecting non-party—Need ofnotice—Rules of Court, Order 34, rule 2.
Facts
The above rule (of Sierra Leone) provides as follows:—
“2. Where by any judgment or order any person therein named is directed to deliver up possession of any lands to some other person, the person prosecuting such judgment or order shall, without any order for that purpose, be entitled to sue out a writ of possession on filing an affidavit showing due service of such judgment or order and that the same has not been obeyed.”
Plaintiff (now respondent) was in possession of premises as sub-tenant of A.R., who had a lease from M.T., the owner. The owner sold the premises to the defendant (now appellant), who sued A.R. for recovery of possession and after judgment in his favour obtained a writ of possession, under which the Sheriff’s officers removed the above respondent’s stock in trade and his personal effects and his wife’s outside the premises and took possession.
The respondent (plaintiff below) had no notice of the proceedings against A.R. (his own lessor), nor was any copy of the judgment therein served upon the respondent. Respondent (as plaintiff below) sued the purchaser (above appellant) claiming general and special damages for trespass and loss of goodsstolen. Atthe time the respondent’s underlease had still time to run, and the appellant knew he was in occupation.
The trial Judge decided in plaintiff’s favour and, though substantially rejecting his
evidence on his losses, awarded him £150 for money stolen, £250 for loss of goods, and £100 as general damages. The defendant appealed.
On appeal it was argued for the appellant that there was no need, as the trial Judge decided, to serve the respondent with notice of the judgment against A.R.; that the Judge erred in awarding special damages as he had not believed the respondent on his losses; and as regards the general damages, that the award was excessive as the Sheriff’s officers remained on the premises for about four hours only.
Held
As the respondent’s sub-lease disappeared upon appellant recovering judgment against A.R., a copy of the judgment ought to have been served on the respondent who was affected by it, in accordance with rule 2 of Order 34.
Held also: (1) Special damages have to be strictly proved, and the trial Judge having substantially rejected the respondent’s evidence on his losses ought not to have endeavoured to assess the loss;
(2) The respondent’s stock in trade and personal effects were put on the pavement in the public highway, and the Judge was justified in taking a serious view of the inconvenience caused to the respondent, as to general damages.
Appeal allowed only as to the special damages.
