Ibrahim Tanko & Anor. V. Baba Mai-waka & Anor. (2009)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MARY U. PETER-ODILI J.C.A.

At the Niger State High Court presided over by the Honourable Justice Aisha A.L.B. Bwari the Plaintiffs (now Respondents) claimed the following:-

(a) The 1st Plaintiff claims against the Defendants jointly and or severally the sum of N400,000.00 being damages for psychological distress;

(b) The 2nd Plaintiff also claims against the Defendants jointly and or severally the sum of N200,000.00 being damages for unlawful detention, defamation of character and psychological distress.

(c) AND the Plaintiffs also demand a written apology from the Defendants respecting the defamatory allegations.

(d) Such further or other reliefs as the justice of this case may demand.

Witnesses testified and both counsel addressed the court and the trial Court dismissed the case against the 1st and 2nd defendants but found against 3rd and 4th and the Defendants 3rd and 4th appealed on three grounds which I shall restate below:-

“GROUNDS OF APPEAL:

(1) the trial court misdirected itself on the facts when it held that plaintiffs were arrested and detained by the Police on false allegations.

(2) The award of damages in favour of the Plaintiffs is wrong in law.

(3) The judgment of the trial Court is against the weight of evidence.”

On the 7th of April 2009 when the appeal was heard the Appellants adopted their Brief filed on 5/2/08 and on it were framed two issues for determination which are as follows:-

1. Whether the Respondents were arrested and detained by the Police at the instance of the Appellants but later exonerated of allegations in the two complaints lodged by the Appellants to the Police.
2. Whether the respondents were entitled to the damages awarded.

The Respondents’ counsel adopted their Brief filed on 25/3/08. The Respondents also adopted the issues as formulated by the Appellants.

ISSUE NO.1:

Whether the Respondents were arrested and detained at the instance of the Appellants but later exonerated of the allegations in the two complaints lodged by the appellants to the police.

Mr. Isiyaku SAN for the Appellants referred to certain parts of the Statement of Claim particularly paragraphs 6 and 7 and paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 of the statement of Defence. He stated that in their defence both Appellants had denied the allegation of arrest and detention. That it must be noted that the allegation relating to the 1st report concerned only the 1st Appellant (3rd Defendant). Also that upon the denial of the 1st Appellant, the Respondents failed to produce and tender the Police Report which they pleaded and undertook to produce same “for the diligent prosecution of this case”. That with the denial by the 1st Appellant, the Police Report became very relevant which is tantamount to an undertaking, BINDING on the party who pleaded a document to produce same failing which the Court is left with no option but to presume that the Police Report, if produced would have been unfavorable to the Respondents. He cited:-

1. Section 149(d) Evidence Act.
2. Elias v. Omo-Bare (1982) All NLR 75 at 84.
3. Olufosoye v. Fakorede (1993) 1 NWLR (pt.272) 747 at 763 C-D
4. Obo v. Commissioner (1993) 2 NWLR (pt. 273) 46 at 61 G.

The learned Senior Advocate further stated that the Police Report would also have cleared the air on whether the nature of complaint lodged by the 1st Appellant was for “mischief, intimidation and trespass” as averred in the Statement of Claim or threat of murder as stated in their oral evidence by PW1 (1st Respondent). That the Police Report would have confirmed whether investigations were conducted by the Police and, if so the outcome thereof and, if not the reason for non-conduct of Investigation and whether it was for withdrawal of complaint. That the onus is on the respondents as Plaintiffs to establish their case and not on the Appellants to prove their innocence which Respondents as Plaintiffs did not establish their case relating to the first complaint. He stated on that paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Statement of Claim are to the effect that All the Defendants leveled allegations of criminal intimidation, criminal mischief and trespass against the Plaintiffs in that the latter invaded and destroyed their farmlands, planted their own crops and threatened to kill them, that the Police (C.I.D. Minna) arrested and detained the Plaintiffs; and that investigations exonerated them. That the respondents pleaded the Police report which they predicated their case on having averred that they will rely on same at the trial for the diligent prosecution of the case.

Learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Isiyaku stated that the appellants denied these averments and averred that ONLY the 2nd Appellant (3rd Defendant) lodged a complaint at the Police Headquarters, Minna where at the Respondents told the Police that the dispute related to title to land which was before the Sharia Court of Appeal and that the Police referred the parties to that Court. He stated further that the issues therefore arising were:-

1. Whether it was ALL or only the 2nd Appellant that made a report to the Police Headquarters, Minna;
2. Whether detention of the respondents was due to the complaint or the attitude of the respondents;
3. Whether investigations were conducted or that parties were referred to the Sharia Court of Appeal; and
4. If investigations were conducted what was the outcome?

He went on to say that both PW1 and PW2 stated that ALL the Defendants brought Policemen to arrest them and that they were detained for 3 days before investigations exonerated them. That PW3 restated this but said the detention was for 2 days. That all the issues arising here, are issues that would have been settled by the Police report which the Respondents, as Plaintiffs claimed they were predicating, as Plaintiffs claimed they claimed they were predicating their case on and relying on the same and undertook to tender same at the trial. That it was clear respondents were in possession of the Police report but failed to tender it. That in view of 2nd Appellant’s averment and his testimony as DW2 that only he reported to the Police, the Police report was essential to respondent’ case and that 1st Appellant’s testimony as DW1 made no reference to this second complaint.

Mr. Olusola of Counsel for the Respondent said in paragraphs 7 and 10 of the Statement of Claim, the Plaintiffs/Respondents asserted that they were arrested and detained by the Police in consequence of the Appellant’s aforesaid criminal complaints. That the defendants/Appellants’ averment in paragraph 8 of the statement of Defence could not seriously contest or controvert the fact of appellants’ arrest and detention by the Police and no warrant was exhibited by the Appellants before the Trial Court to back up such arrest.

Learned counsel for the Respondent said it is now trite law that all the aforesaid admitted facts about the Appellants’ criminal complaints against the Respondents and the consequent arrest cum detention of the respondent would require no further proof. He referred to Section 75 of the Evidence Act; Ogbogu v. Ugwuegbu (2003) 20 WRN 1 at 17.

He stated further that the 3rd defendant/2nd Appellant testified as DW2 and admitted that he actually lodged such criminal complaint against the Plaintiffs/Respondents at the Police Headquarters, Minna. That he further admitted that the land in dispute between the parties actually belongs to the Respondents as confirmed by the Sharia Court of Appeal, Minna and Court of Appeal, Abuja. That the Plaintiffs were arrested by the Police without warrant on the two occasions. He said DW2’s testimony therefore confirmed the falsity of Appellant’s criminal complaints against the Respondents as averred in paragraphs 5, 6, 8 and 9 of the Statement of Claim, the testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW3 which were not impeached under cross-examination and were believed by the trial court. That the trial court rightly acted on the admissions as per the parties’ pleadings and believed the Plaintiffs/Respondents’ evidence having been opportune to see and hear the witnesses testify. He cited Gaji v. Paye (2003) 30 WRN 146 at 167; Fagbenro v. Arobadi (2006) 19 WRN 1 at 29-30.

Mr. Olusola said both parties pleaded the police case Diary but could not tender same in court. That the plaintiffs/respondent’s efforts to produce the police case Diary proved futile because the court bailiff was told that the IPO in charge of the case had been transferred and so section 149 (d) of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked against the Respondents since they did not deliberately without any piece of evidence. That there were other pieces of evidence sufficient including admissions on record to ground the trial Court’s verdict and so this court should hold by dismissing this appeal. He cited Dagaci of Deme & ors. V. Dagaci of Ebwa &. Ors. (2006) All FWLR (pt. 306) 786 at 826 &. 829; Okere v. Fashawe (2006) 12 WRN 1 at 26 – 27.

I shall recapture the Statement of Claim for a clearer picture alongside the findings on the evidence in the Court below.

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

1. The 1st Plaintiff is a Seasoned Elderly farmer resident in Gbaigna-Bussi village in Paikoro Local Government Area of Niger State at all material times hereto. The 1st Plaintiff is one of the renowned Elders of Bussi Community.
2. The 2nd Plaintiff is a son to the 1st Plaintiff and actively engaged in joint farming activities with the 1st Plaintiff at Gbaigna-Bussi village in Paikoro Local Government Area of Niger State. The 2nd Plaintiff is also well recognized among the youths of Bussi Community as a very hard-working young person.
3. The Defendants are all principally farmers and indigenes of Kwanayi village in Paikoro Local Government Area of Niger State. Kwanayi Community is located over a kilometer away from Bussi Community.
4. The Plaintiffs aver that at all material times hereto, they have been going about their farming activities at Gbaigna-Bussi in a lawful and peaceful manner as a major means of their livelihood.
5. In an apparent bid to disturb the Plaintiffs peaceful/lawful undertakings, the defendants have in recent times been fond of leveling false accusations against the Plaintiffs.
6. Specifically, on or about 28/5/2001, the 4th Defendant went to the Police station Paiko and lodged a complaint against the Plaintiffs by alleging that the Plaintiffs committed the offences of criminal mischief/intimidation and trespass on his farmland situate at Gbaigna.
7. Consequent upon the afore-stated allegations, the Plaintiffs were arrested and detained by the Police at Paiko Police Station. Police investigations later exonerated the Plaintiffs hence the 1st Defendant withdrew his complaint and the Plaintiffs were released from Police detention.
8. As a sort of follow-up to the afore-stated incident, the defendants again went to the Police Headquarters Minna on or about 27th – 28th June, 2001 and leveled allegations of Criminal Intimidation, Criminal Mischief and Trespass against the Plaintiffs, all these being criminal offences punishable under the Penal Code.
9. The gist of the defendants’ complaint at the Police Headquarters Minna was that the Plaintiffs invaded/destroyed the defendants’ farmlands at Gbaigna and planted crops thereon and also threatened to kill the defendants.
10. Consequent upon the afore-stated allegations, the police (C.I.D Minna) arrested and detained the Plaintiffs at the Police Headquarters, Minna.
11. Police Investigations eventually exonerated the Plaintiffs and they were released from detention by the Police. Hence, the Criminal complaints against the Plaintiffs could not be taken before any Law Court for prosecution up to this date. The Plaintiffs hereby plead the relevant Police reports and shall rely on same at the trial for the diligent prosecution of this case.
12. By dint of the afore-mentioned criminal allegations, the defendants had been greatly defamed in their character/reputation and exposed to public ridicule, odium and contempt within their community and environs.
13. The nature and reasonable interpretation of the afore-said criminal allegations against the Plaintiffs is that the Plaintiffs are murderers, bunch of hardened criminals/mischievous elements not worthy to be chosen as good neighbours by any farmer/reasonable members of their community/environs. That is, the Plaintiffs ought to be ostracized or eliminated by the state by reason of the potential danger they pose to their neighbours.
14. Such allegations as contained above have seriously stigmatized the Plaintiffs and are continuously adversely affecting them psychologically and causing their neighbours to deal with them with great caution and suspicion since the time of the allegations.
15. The Plaintiffs maintain that they are very innocent of the Above-stated criminal allegations which were maliciously framed up by the defendants to disrupt the Plaintiffs’ lawful farming business and discredit the Plaintiffs and such desired effects were indeed achieved by the defendants.
16. The Plaintiffs aver that they lost their several farming business hours in the course of responding to the above criminal allegations by parading the Police Stations for interrogations etc instead of going to their farmlands for farming purposes.
17. No apology has emanated from the defendants to the Plaintiffs up to this date on this score. Neither has the defendants shown any remorse.
18. WHEREOF the Plaintiffs claim against the Defendants jointly and severally the following reliefs, to wit: – (as stated earlier).

I would hereunder restate the pleadings of the defence.

“JOINT STATEMENT OF DEFENCE OF 1ST, 2ND, 3RD & 4TH DEFENDANTS

SAVE AND EXCEPT as herein expressly and specifically admitted the defendants deny each and every allegation of fact contained in the plaintiffs’ statement of claim as if each of such allegations are herein set out and traversed derivation.

1. The defendant admits averment in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the statement of claim.
2. The defendants deny averment in paragraph 5 of the plaintiffs’ statement of claim. Plaintiffs’ are put to the strictest proof thereof.
3. The defendant admits averment in paragraph 6 of the statement of claim.
4. The 4th defendant denies averments in paragraph 7 of the statement of claim and put the plaintiff to the strictest proof thereof.
5. In answer to averment in paragraph 7 of the statement of claim, the 4th defendant avers that he withdraw his complaint sequel to the plea by both counsel in the matter that he should withdraw his complaint as a result the police untoward attitude in the matter, that the matter had been litigated upon by the parties and the plaintiffs were also claiming ownership of the land. Defendants shall at the trial of this suit rely on the case file on the complaint of the 4th defendant at the Paiko Police Station and same is hereby pleaded.
6. The defendants deny averment in paragraph 8 of the statement of claim and put the plaintiff to the strictest proof thereof.
7. In answer to averment in paragraph 8 of the statement of claim, the defendants aver that the complaint lodged at the Police Headquarters Minna by the 3rd defendant (alone) was independent of and never a follow up to that of Paiko Police Station as the 3rd defendant was unaware of the complaint by the 4th defendant against the plaintiffs at Paiko Police Station and the 3rd defendant complaint involved a different farm (lands) at Duakawu (not Gbaigan).
8. The defendants further deny averments in paragraphs 9 & 10 of the statement of claim and put the plaintiffs to the strictest proof thereof. In answer to averment in paragraph 10 of the statement of claim the defendant aver that the plaintiffs were detained because of their untoward attitude to the police when the police attempted to arrest them at the village.
9. The defendants vehemently deny averment contained in paragraph 11 of the statement of claim and put the plaintiff to the strictest proof thereof.
10. In answer to averment in paragraph 11 of the statement of claim the defendant aver that the plaintiffs were not prosecuted on the complaint lodged at the Police Headquarters because the plaintiff rather than deny the allegation claimed that the matter was litigated upon at the Sharia Court of Appeal hence the Police referred the matter to the Sharia Court of Appeal Minna at the instance of the plaintiff because the police said they had no Jurisdiction to entertain matter bordering on claim of ownership to land.
11. The defendant denies averment contained in paragraphs 12 – 16 of the statement of claim and put the plaintiffs to the strictest proof thereof.
12. The defendant further aver that the plaintiffs are not deserving of any apology whatsoever on the matter.

WHEREOF the defendants pray the Honourable Court to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ claim as scandalous, vexatious, embarrassing and an abuse of legal process.

The judgment of the learned trial judge basis of this appeal would have the relevant parts recaptured below:-

“It is thus clear from the above (the pleadings of Plaintiffs and defendants) that while paragraphs 3 & 7 of the defendants’ statement of defence is an admission of the 4th defendants having reported the plaintiffs to the Paiko Police station on 28/5/2001 the 3rd defendant to the Police Headquarters C.I.D. Minna on 27/6/2001 with the detention of the plaintiffs for two days on each of these occasions. The said admission being only against the same 3rd and 4th defendant cannot be held as admission against the 1st and 2nd defendants as there is nothing in the said paragraphs of the statement of claim admitted by them. While the above admitted facts need no further proof by virtue of Section 75 of the Evidence Act against the 4th & 3rd defendant’s evidence however need to be adduced in proof of the stated fact, against the 1st & 2nd defendants? The plaintiffs have led evidence by their various testimonies to the effect that all the defendants were instrumental to their arrest and detention at the Paiko Police Station and the Police Headquarters, Minna. These evidence or testimonies (sic) I am afraid go contrary to the averments in paragraphs 6 & 8 of the Statement of Claim that it was the 4th & 3rd defendants respectively who repotted the plaintiffs to and their eventual arrest by the Police of Paiko and Police Headquarters. It is at variance with the plaintiffs’ pleading which never pleaded the involvement of the 1st and 2nd defendants in their arrest and detention for the alleged criminal intimidation trespass and mischief. Therefore that part of evidence has to be discountenanced with. Because the court must not base its judgment on a matter which is not pleaded, as a fact not pleaded goes to no issue. The case against the 1st and 2nd defendants has to fail and it hereby fails… on proof of defamation against 3rd and 4th defendants must be reproduced or stated… And as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel to the defendants there is no testimony or any document tendered from the Police station to which the defendants lodged their complaints of the actual words of defamation used by the defendants against the plaintiff. There is no doubt that the law is settled that criminal allegation by a defendant to a plaintiff is actionable per se, as submitted by the learned counsel to the plaintiff. However, the actual defamatory word used by the defendants in making such criminal allegation has to be stated before it can be actionable. In the absence of the actual defamatory words used by the defendants against the plaintiff, the plaintiffs claim for defamation against the 3rd & 4th defendants must also fail and it hereby fails… It is therefore clear from the above (admission in defence pleading in respect of 3rd and 4th defendants) that both plaintiff were arrested and detained for two days each at the Paiko Police Station on the 27/5/2001, and the Police Headquarter, Minna on the 27/6/2001 by the Police on the complaint of criminal mischief, criminal trespass and criminal intimidation made by the 4th and 3rd defendants respectively against them. The fact of arrest and detention of the plaintiffs has therefore been proved.

The next question is whether or not the arrest of the plaintiff was lawful. It is the assertion of the 4th defendant that he reported the plaintiff as DW1 (sic) to the Police Station Paiko after both plaintiff came into his farm at Gbaidnai, abused, threatened to kill and destroyed their farm produce. This the plaintiffs have denied doing as the farmland on which the criminal trespasses alleged had been adjudged by the Sharia Court of Appeal and the Court of Appeal to belong to the plaintiffs. Both defendants also admit this fact under cross-examination that the farmland had been adjudged for the plaintiffs by a court of law then it cannot be held to be true, that the plaintiffs committed trespass onto their own property. And the defendants having made such complaint against the plaintiffs as admitted by them to have done knew that complaint was false.

The above fact does not support the defendants claim that the plaintiffs were arrested and detained by the police not because of the reports made by the defendants but because the plaintiff resisted arrest and abused the policemen that came to invite them to the police station.

As regards the allegation of criminal intimidation and mischief made by the defendants, no evidence exists in proof of the truth of these allegations before this Court…

Thus the defendants set in motion the action of the arrest and detention of the plaintiff by the police on 28/5/2001 and 27/6/2001 on falsely accusing them of criminal trespass, criminal intimidation, and criminal mischief. Their arrest was therefore without basis and therefore unlawful”.

Having stated in detail the judgment of the learned trial judge it behoves this court to align with the relevant section of the Evidence Act and judicial authorities akin to the situation on ground.

Section 75 Evidence Act-

No fact need be proved in any civil proceedings which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which by any rule or pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings.

Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admissions.

Evidence adduced without pleading goes to no issue and should be ignored.

Pleadings not supported by evidence are deemed abandoned. Emegokwe v. Okadigbo (1973) 4 SC 112, Oduma v. Nnachi (1964) 1 All NLR 329.

In civil actions tried on pleadings, the parties and the court are bound by their pleadings filed in the case. They will not be allowed to set up cases different from their pleadings. Parties must limit themselves severally to the issues raised in their pleadings. Ogbogu v. Ugwuegbu (2003) 10 NWLR (pt. 827) 189 at 209; N.I.P.C. Ltd. V. Bank of West Africa (1962) 1 All NLR (pt. 4) 559; Kalio v. Kalio (1975) 2 SC 15; N.I.P.C. v. Thompson Organisation (1969) 1 All NLR 138; George v. Dominion Flour Mills Ltd. (1963) 1 SCNLR 117, Nkanu v. Onun (1977) 5 SC 13; Sagay v. M.N.I. (1977) 5 SC 143.

Parties and the court are bound by the pleadings filed in a suit, and the issues joined therein. Consequently, the court must always be on its guard so as not to deviate from the case made by each party in the pleading; otherwise it will unwittingly make an entirely new case for the parties. Fagbenro v. Arobadi (2006) 7 NWLR (pt. 978) 172 at 188 per Oguntade JSC; Ojo v. Adejobi (1978) 3 SC 65; Ibanga v. Usanga (1982) 5 SC 103; Olatunji v. Adisa (1995) 2 NWLR (pt. 376) 167; Okpala v. Sola (1986) 4 SC 141.

A court should not make a case different from the case a party made for himself. Fagbenro v. Arobadi (2006) 7 NWLR (pt. 978) 172 at 183; Aseino v. Amos (1975) SC 57; Olatunji v. Adisa (1995) 2 NWLR (pt. 376) 167; Alhaji Otaru &. sons Ltd. V. Idiris (1999) 6 NWLR (pt. 606) 330.

From the evidence adduced by both parties in the court below supported by pleadings there is no gainsaying that the findings of the learned trial judge was based on what was before her and her evaluation and conclusion correctly made. It is for that reason that I find this issue in favour of the Respondents.

ISSUE NO.2:

Whether the Respondents were entitled to the damages awarded them.

Mr. Isiyaku SAN for the Appellants contended that the Respondents in their Statement of Claim related their claim to damages to loss of earnings. That loss of earnings is a special damage and must be particularized and strictly proved, none of which the Respondents did. He cited Blackwood v. Omuna (2002) 12 NWLR (pt. 7820 523 AT 540 – 541 G – A; UBA v. Folarun (2003) 7 NWLR (pt. 818) 18 at 45 D – E; Oshun state v. Dalami (2003) 7 NWLR (pt. 81) 72 at 98 – 99 E- B; Umoetuk v. UBN PLC (2002) 3 NWLR (pt. 755) 647 at 668 C – D.

Senior counsel concluded by saying the allegation of defamation having failed no damages can be sustained and so the award should be set aside.

Mr. Olusola stated in response that the appellants have not shown in any way that the damages awarded in respondents’ favour were unwarranted, extravagant, excessive or outrageous in any way and so the award should not be interfered with. He cited Walter v. All Tools (1944) 61 TLR 36; UBA v. Ogunsanya (2003) 14 WLR 105 at 116 – 119.

He stated on that damages naturally flow from such wrong doing without further proof. He cited Winfield & Jolowics On tort 11th edition pp 56 – 57; Sweet on Torts 6th Edition pp. 23 – 28. That it follows that appellants’ contention that the damages awarded were not strictly proved is of no moment or legal consequence and so this appeal should be dismissed.

The learned trial judge had held in continuation:-

“Having held that the arrest and detention the plaintiffs were unlawful one cannot help but again agree with their evidence and counsel that they have suffered unlawful injury to liberty and loss of time as they could not attend to their normal day-to-day activities as farmers. They have also as a result suffered injury to feelings i.e. indignity, mental sufferings, disgrace and humiliation with attendant loss of social status… They had by virtue of the acts of the defendants suffered psychological distress.

I therefore at this juncture from the foregoing disagree with the defendants counsel, that the failure of the proof of allegation of defamation by the plaintiffs against the defendants means failure of proof of unlawful arrest and detention and consequently untenable the psychological distress.

The claim of the plaintiffs against the defendants are based on tort the liability which arises from the breach of a duty primarily fix by the law towards persons generally and its breach is redressible by and action in liquidated damages. The plaintiffs therefore sued the defendants for damages having breached their duty of freedom of movement of personal liberty and as guaranteed by the law i.e. section 35 (i) (c) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Thus redressible by unliquidated damages… The objective of awarding damages in tort, is to put the plaintiffs in the position he would have been if the tort had not been committed. Therefore in the measure of damages, in this action of the plaintiffs for unlawful arrest and detention, the plaintiffs are entitled to such sum as will put them in the position they would have been if the acts of unlawful arrest and detention never occurred. It is in the light of the above that the court in awarding damages to the plaintiffs have taken into consideration the time loss they as farmers suffered without working on their farms, the disgrace, indignity, humiliation and the attendant loss of social status as respectable members of their society in addition to the psychological distress they underwent.

Consequently the court finds and award for the plaintiffs against the defendants as follows:-

1. General damages is hereby awarded the 1st plaintiff against the 3rd an 4th defendants jointly and severally in the sum of Eighty Thousand naira (N80,000.00) only.
2. General damages in the sum of Eighty Thousand naira (N80,000.00) only for the 2nd plaintiff against the 3rd and 4th defendants jointly and severally.
3. A letter of apology is hereby ordered to be written by the 3rd and 4th defendants jointly and severally to the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs.
4. A cost of N10,000.00 (Ten Thousand Naira only is hereby awarded the plaintiffs against the 3rd and 4th defendants jointly and severally.
5. The case against the 1st and 2nd defendants is hereby dismissed.”

Special damages are damages which are of the type which the law will not infer from the nature of the act. They are not in the ordinary course of the events. The law therefore requires they must be claimed specially and proved strictly. UBA Plc v. Ogunsanya (2003) 8 NWLR (pt. 821) 111 at 127 – 128; Ekeinia Y. Nkpakara (1997) 5 NWLR (pt. 504) 152; Eseigbe Y. Agholor (1993) 9 NWLR (pt. 316) 128; Onuigbo v. Nwekeson (1993) 3 NWLR (pt. 283) 533; Oshinjinrin v. Elias (1970) 1 All NLR 153; Orient Bank (Nig.) Plc. V. Bilante Int. Ltd. (1997) 8 NWLR (pt. 515) 37.

Any claim for loss of earnings is a claim in special damages in the sense that full particulars must be given by the plaintiff in his pleading of his rate of earning and such other facts as may be necessary to enable the court to calculate, as best and accurately as it can, the actual amount of the plaintiffs’ loss. Blackwood Lodge Nig. Plc. V. Omwa Construction Co. (2002) 12 NWLR (pt. 782) 523; Benin Rubber Co-operative Marketing Union Ltd. V. Ojo (1997) 8 NWLR (pt. 521) 388,

Gbolade v. Oladejo (1994) 8 NWLR (pt. 362) 281; Oshinjinrin v. Elias (1970) All NLR 153.

Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. Obot v. Akpan (1998) 4 NWLR (pt. 546) 409.

The contention of the learned Senior Advocate that the damages awarded the Respondents were in the realm of special damages and were neither pleaded nor proved in evidence would not be applicable here nor the judicial authorities cited and elaborated upon above since the learned trial Judge made no reference to an award in special damages or damages resembling such damages. She made the awards in general damages and it is trite that, in reviewing an award of damages, an appellate court is not justified in substituting a figure of its own for that awarded by a trial court simply because it would have awarded a different figure if it had tried the case at first instance. The court will however, interfere with as award of damages by a trial court where it is satisfied that the trial court in assessing the damages applied a wrong principle of law such as taking into account irrelevant facts or leaving out of account some relevant facts, or that the amount awarded is either so ridiculously low or so ridiculously high that it must have been a wholly erroneous estimate of the damages.

Consequently, it is incumbent on the party wishing to disturb the damages awarded by the trial court to prove to the appellate Court that the trial court did not follow the principles relating to award of damages. This the Appellant in the case in hand has not done. I place reliance on the following cases:- Umoetuk v. UBN PLC (2002) 2 NWLR (pt. 755) 647 at 664 – 665; Obene v. Board of Management, Eku Baptish Hospital (178) 6 – 7 SC 15; Douglas v. Peterside (1994) 3 NWLR (pt. 330) 37; Onaga v. Micho & Co 1961) 2 SCNLR 101; Union Bank of Nigeria ltd. V. Odusote Bookstores (1995) 9 NWLR (pt. 421) 558; Ojini v. Ogo Oluwa Motors (Nig.) Ltd. (1998) 1 NWLR (pt. 534) 353; College of Education, Warri v. Odede (1999) 1 NWLR (pt. 586) 253.

General damages are such as the law will presume to be the direct natural or probable consequence of the act complained of as has been established here, where the Appellants knowing the falsity of their allegation went ahead to make complaints of a criminal nature to the Police for which the Respondents lost their freedom and the expected impression people would have of those who are detained at the police station and the fact that they could not go to work during that period of incarceration. See the cases of: – Osun State Government v. Dalami (Nig.) ltd. (2003) 7 NWLR (pt. 818) 72 at 100. Nigerian Breweries Plc. V. Adetown Oladejo (Nig.) Ltd. (2002) 18 WRN 87; Ijebu Ode Local Government V. Adedeji Balogun & Co. Ltd. (1991) 1 NWLR (pt. 166) 136.

A trial court must give sufficient reasons for its award of general damages and since that was done by the Court below the power under Section 16 of the Court of Appeal Act for this court to remit the case to the trial court for it to give its reason for the award. See Abodundu v. Queen (1959) 1 SCNLR 162; Maida v. Modu (2000) 4 NWLR (pt. 651) 99; Osun State Government v. Dalami (Nig.) Ltd. (2003) 7 NWLR (pt. 818) 72.

The fact that damages are difficult to assess as this instance shows where the injury is not physical does not disentitle a plaintiff from compensation for loss resulting from a defendant’s unlawful acts. Similarly, the fact that the amount of such loss cannot be precisely ascertained does not deprive a plaintiff of all remedy. Osun State Government v. Dalami (Nig.) Ltd. (2003) 7 NWLR (pt. 818) 72 at 99; Nzeribe v. Dave Enterpering Co. Ltd. (1994) 8 NWLR (pt. 361) 124.

From the evidence adduced in the Court below and the evaluation of the learned trial judge with regard to whether or not the Respondents were entitled to the general damages awarded, I am satisfied that she applied the relevant laws to the evidence supported by the pleadings before her. Therefore I find not reason to disturb either her assessment or the basis for the awards as clearly the Respondents suffered on account of the unlawful activities of the Appellants and the judge was right to have made the award at least to compensate the Respondents for the arrest, detention, humiliation, indignity etc occasioned them not to talk of such conduct being discouraged from those who might be so inclined.

This appeal clearly lacks merit and I dismiss it, while I affirm the decision and orders of the Court below.

I award N50,000.00 costs to the Respondents to be paid by the Appellants.

---

Other Citations: (2009)LCN/3278(CA)