Justice K. O. Anyah V. Imo Concorde Hotels Limited & Ors (2002)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

A. KALGO, JSC.

By a writ of summons issued at the Imo State High Court, in the Owerri Judicial Division, on the 17th of March 1987, the appellant as plaintiff claimed against the respondents jointly and severally, as defendants, the sum of N150,000,00 (One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) as general and special damages in that between the 19th and 20th of December 1986, the appellant suffered the loss of his Peugeot 505 SR A/C Saloon Car registration No. IM 6582 AF parked in the premises of the 1st respondent along Port Harcourt/Owerri/Road, due to the negligence and/or breach of duty of care on the part of the respondents. And by paragraph 15 of the statement of claim, particulars of claim were set out thus:-Special damages

a. Value of plaintiff’s Peugeot 505 SR/AC Saloon Car less than 12 months old at that time of loss……….. N 65,000.00

b. Cost of hiring car at N20.00 for 42 days N840.00

c. Generaldamages…… N84,160.00

N150,000.00

Pleadings were filed and exchanged between the parties in the trial court. The appellant called one witness and gave evidence himself in proof of his claim and the respondents called four witness in their defence. Learned counsel for the parties addressed the court before the trial court adjourned for judgment. Earlier, there was a visit to the premises of the 1st respondent to see the width of the security gate through which all vehicles move in and out of the hotel.

In a considered judgment delivered on the 24th April, 1989, the learned trial Judge Nwogu, J., found that negligence was proved against the respondents. As a result he awarded the sum of N65,000.00 being the value of the appellant’s Peugeot 505 car and N30,000.00 as general damages for the inconvenience suffered as a result thereof.

The respondents were dissatisfied with the decision and they appealed against it to the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt. The parties filed and exchanged their briefs of argument. The appeal was heard and in the judgment of the court, (Edozie, JCA., concurred by Ndoma – Egba and Omosun, JJCA.), it was held that:-

The appeal on liability being the dominant issue and having succeeded, this appeal is allowed wholly. Accordingly, the judgment of the lower court is reversed. The respondent’s claim is dismissed with costs………..

The appellant who was the respondent in the Court of Appeal was not happy with this decision and has now appealed to this court on two grounds of appeal. The respondents also cross-appealed, with the leave of this court, on one ground only.

In this court, the parties filed and exchanged their respective briefs in accordance with the rules of court. In his brief, the appellant formulated 3 issues for the determination of this court in the main appeal. They read:-

i. Was the Court of Appeal right in holding that the respondent did not owe the appellant a duty of care especially in the light of the facts of this case

ii. Was the Court of Appeal right in asserting that such duty of care could only be founded on contract