Alhaji Ibrahim Yakassai Vs Incar Motors Nig. Ltd (1975)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

IBEKWE, J.S.C. 

This is an appeal from the decision of Wali, Ag. J., as he then was. The plaintiff’s claims in the court below are as follows :

“The defendants detain and have refused to deliver to the Plaintiff the Plaintiff’s goods, that is to say Fiat Lorry Registration No. KN. 1975 and a Trailer Registration No. KN 2389 and the defendants hereby converted the same to his own use and wrongly deprived the Plaintiff of the said goods.
Wherefore the Plaintiff claims :
(1)The return of the said vehicles or their value being
5,000 : 12 : 4d
(2) Damages for detention of the said vehicles limited to
3,000: 0: 0d
8,000: 12: 4d

Pleadings were ordered and filed. At the trial, the plaintiff called two witnesses in support of his claim. The defendants called four witnesses, but no Hire Purchase Agreement was admitted in evidence.

It is relevant to observe here that at the close of the case for the parties, the learned trial judge granted a curious application for an amendment of the Statement of Defence, which was made by the defendants. But as we are not called upon to decide this particular point on this appeal, we shall refrain from going into the matter in detail. We simply observe that the learned trial judge should not have granted the said application in the particular circumstances of this case. It seems to us however, not that the procedural irregularity which had occurred does not, in any way, affect the merit of this appeal; and we therefore, take the view that it is unnecessary to be labour the point.

After hearing evidence from both sides, the learned trial judge adjourned the case for judgment. In a considered judgment delivered on 13th October, 1972, Wali, Ag. J., as he then was, after reviewing all the evidence before him, reached the conclusion that the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendants was a conditional sale, and that the plaintiff had acted in violation of the conditions of the sale, i.e. installment payments. The learned trial judge therefore, dismissed the plaintiff’s claim.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the learned trial judge, the plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court on the following grounds:

“(1) The Learned Trial Judge misdirected himself by confusing contract of “Sale” with “agreement for sale” when he said that the remedy open to the Plaintiff/Appellant was only a personal action and not for detinue and conversion.

(2) The Learned Trial Judge was wrong when in his judgment he stated that the sale of the vehicle, the subject matter of the action, was a conditional sale, a defence not pleaded by the defence.

(3) The Learned Trial Judge having found that the sale of the motor vehicle the subject matter of the action was not under a Hire Purchase Agreement was wrong to have referred in his judgment to conditions applicable to Hire Purchase transactions, and so found against the Plaintiff/Appellant for non-compliance with these conditions.” ‘

The facts of this case which are not in dispute for the purposes of this appeal are as set out in paragraphs 2,3 and 4 of the plaintiff’s Statement of Claim, as follows:

“2. As far back as December 1967 the Plaintiff approached the Defendants for the purchase of a Fiat Lorry and a Trailer.

3. On 29/12/67 the Plaintiff paid an initial deposit of 200 towards the purchase of the vehicles.

4. The Plaintiff kept on paying various sums of money as deposit towards the purchase of the vehicles until the vehicles were delivered to the Plaintiff sometime in March 1968.”