Mobil Oil (Nigeria) Limited Vs Johnson (1961)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ADEMOLA, C.J.F

This was a claim by the plaintiff arising out of an agreement between the parties relating to the operation of a petrol filling and service station at Mokola, Ibadan. It was not in dispute that the petrol station was the property of the defendant nor was it in dispute that the defendant did operate the station under an agreement contained in a letter Exhibit A dated the 14th November, 1955.

On the 31st day of July, 1956 the defendant Company by a letter bearing that date gave the plaintiff 30 days notice for the termination of the relationship between them under the agreement Exhibit A. The letter was not received by the plaintiff until the 7th August, 1956. On the 30th August, 1956, the defendant took possession of the petrol station. The plaintiff thereby brought an action against the defendant Company claiming as follows:

(A) £5,000 general and special damages for unlawful entry of the defendants on the petrol filling station

(B) An account of the stock taken over by the defendant at the filling station on the 30th August, 1956 and payment over of what is found due to the plaintiff upon the taking of the said account.

(C) The return of all documents belonging to the plaintiff and which were at the Station on the 30th August, 1956.

The defendant Company filed a counter-claim against the plaintiff, but for the purposes of this appeal we are concerned mainly with the claim of £5,000 damages for unlawful entry as in (A) above

In a considered judgment, the learned trial Judge stated that the two main issues which arise are:

1. What is the legal relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant company?

2. In view of that relationship, is the notice a valid notice?

He arrived at the conclusion that the relationship was that of a lessor and lessee and that the notice to quit was bad in law. He then proceeded to assess the plaintiff’s claim for loss of earnings at the rate of £150 per month and allowed him £75 for loss of earnings for two weeks.

In his treatment of general damages, the learned trial Judge said as follows:-

That the action of the defendant was high-handed, insolent and showed a contempt of the plaintiff’s rights as well borne out by evidence which showed inter alia that defendant acted not only in breach of the legal provision as to the requirements of a valid notice but in fact in breach of their own notice exhibit “C”. In addition their haste in taking stock or inventory in the absence of the plaintiff or his representative or an uninterested third party; their selling his stock without his consent and in his absence as well as causing the loss of the Plaintiff’s books of account and properties he had on the premises showed a contempt for his rights. This is a case in which I should award exemplary damages, but in my view the plaintiff’s claim is highly exaggerated. I do award the sum of £900 as general damages. I have further taken into account the fact that I must dismiss the plaintiff’s third claim owing to the defendant’s action under consideration.

The learned trial Judge therefore entered judgment for the plaintiff for £975 and £113-0s-6d costs.