International Messengers Nigeria Limited Vs Engineer David Nwachuku (2004)
LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report
MUSDAPHER, J.S.C.
By a writ of summons issued by the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja and in suit No. FCT/HC/CV/414/93, the plaintiff, Engineer David Nwachukwu claimed against the defendant, International Messengers Nigeria Ltd., a courier company, as per paragraph 14 of the statement of claim, as follows:-
“Whereof the plaintiff claims from the defendant the sum of one million Naira as general damages for the injuries that occurred to him as a result of the defendant’s negligence and breach of duty of care.”
In its statement of defence, the defendant denied liability and the matter proceeded to trial where the parties led evidence. In his judgment delivered the 24th day of September, 1997 the trial Judge found for the plaintiff but held that there was contributory negligence on the pari of the plaintiff (but did not indicate the extent) and awarded the plaintiff general damages in the sum of N100,000.00.
The learned trial Judge held in particular:-
“In assessing damages, the delay caused by the defendant in not sending the letter before the date of the interview caused loss of opportunity to the plaintiff, which is a direct natural or probable consequence of the act of the defendant. Shell, that invited the defendant for an interview, after examining all his papers, found him to be worthy of such invitation. The plaintiff has lost his valuable opportunity. After a very careful assessment, this court has awarded to the plaintiff the sum of N100,000.00 as damages only.”
The defendant felt unhappy with the judgment and appealed to the Court of Appeal. In accordance with the notice of appeal, the Court of Appeal considered the following issues formulated by itself for the determination of the appeal:-
“(1) Whether the lower court was right when it found the appellant liable in negligence. Subsumed in this issue is:-
Whether the lower court was right when it held that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care to advise its Post Office Box before the 1st November, 1993.
(2) Whether there was any evidence to sustain the award of damages made by the lower court. Subsumed in this issue are two sub issues as follows:
(a) Whether the lower court was right to have made an award for damages for lost opportunity when the evidence of injury led is for mental and psychological shock.
(b) Whether the award for lost opportunity was based on mere speculation or a mere probability. (3) Whether the lower court was right when it held there was causal connection between the act of the defendant and the plaintiff missing the interview.”
In its judgment delivered the 18/4/2000, the Court of Appeal per Oduyemi, JCA and agreed to by Coomassie and Bulkachuwa, JJ.C.A found no merit in the appeal and dismissed the same. The defendant, hereinafter called the appellant, and the plaintiff, the respondent filed a notice of further appeal to this court. Before the consideration of the issues submitted to this court for the determination of the appeal, it shall be necessary to set out the relevant facts. The action was filed by the respondent at the trial Court because he was not happy with the way and manner his mail was handled and delivered to him by the appellant a courier company. In response to his application for employment, Shell Development Company Nigeria Ltd. (hereinafter referred to simply as Shell), the respondent was invited for interview at Port-Harcourt Shell’s Head Office. A letter was delivered to the appellant’s office at Port-Harcort for delivery to the respondent at Abuja. The letter was handed over to the appellant at its office at Port-Harcourt on the 26/10/1993 at 6.15 p.m. The letter which was written on the 20/10/1993 inviting the respondent to the interview fixed for 1/11/1993 did not contain any address for delivery. It was to be kept with the appellant at its office at Abuja for the respondent to personally come to collect. The appellant should only advise the respondent of the arrival of the letter at Abuja through a Post Office Box number, The appellant claimed that the letter arrived Abuja on the 29/1 0/1993 at about noon and that was Friday. Saturday and Sunday were not working days and the appellant dispatched the advice to the respondent on the 2/11/1993 a day after the interview was scheduled to hold at Port-Harcourt. The respondent did not even receive this advice until the 15th of November, 1993. The respondent claimed that the letter arrived Abuja on the 26/10/1993 and the appellant accepted to deliver the advice to the respondent within 24 hours of the arrival, but the appellant failed to despatch the letter to the Post Office Box until the 2/11/1993. Thus the respondent missed the interview and accordingly made a claim for negligence and breach of duty of care against the appellant for non-delivery of the letter on time.
Distilled from the notice of appeal filed against the decision of the Court of Appeal three issues for the determination of the appeal were identified and submitted to this court. An objection against the first issue was raised by the respondent. At the hearing of the appeal before this court, the learned counsel for the appellant, rightly in my view, conceded the point and abandoned issue No. 1. Issue No.1 is accordingly struck out. The two issues remaining are:-
Leave a Reply