Plateau State Health Services Management Board & Anor. V. Inspector Philip Fitoka Goshwe (2012)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

STANLEY SHENKO ALAGAO, J.S.C.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal Jos Division delivered on the 14th July, 2003. At the High Court Jos, the present Respondent who was Plaintiff had taken out a writ of summons claiming the sum of two million naira (N2,000,000.00) being special and general damages for the negligent conduct of the defendants (Appellant in this appeal) which led to the permanent disability of his hearing senses. The Respondent had sought for and been granted leave to adduce affidavit evidence by the trial High Court. A synopsis of the Respondents case as can be gleaned from his statement of claim and affidavit evidence contained at pages 3 – 4 and 20 – 22 of the Record of Appeal is that the Respondent, a policeman had gone to the hospital of the 2nd Appellant for treatment of pneumonia and after the said treatment the Respondent became 100% deaf. A panel of inquiry set up by the Appellants had arrived at a conclusion that the Respondent’s deafness was due to some injections he received for treatment pneumonia at the Appellant’s hospital. That panel had also recommended that the Respondent’s employers, the Nigeria Police, purchase two rare drugs which could cure the Respondent’s deafness. The panel further recommended that Respondent be assigned to other duties which would not require communication but surprisingly the Appellants went on to recommend to the Respondent’s employers that the Respondent be retired on health grounds, instead of purchasing the drugs which might have cured the Respondent’s deafness. In consequence of the Respondent’s loss of job, his eight children had to leave school. His request for the payment of compensation having fallen on deaf ears, the Respondent brought an action against the Appellants claiming N200,000.00 (Two Million Naira) as damages for negligence. The Respondent relied on the doctrine of “Res ipsa loquitur”.

The Appellants as Defendants filed a joint Statement of Defence contained at pages 15 and 16 of the Record of Appeal but led no evidence with respect to same choosing to rest their case on that of the Plaintiff now Respondent. After addresses of counsel, the learned trial Judge in a reserved judgment found in favour of the Plaintiff (now Respondent) and awarded the sum of N300,000.00 damages in favour of the Plaintiff for negligence. The plea of “Res ipsa loquitur” availed the Respondent.

Aggrieved, the Defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal on four grounds from which two issues were distilled i.e the learned trial Judge’s reliance on exhibits “C” and “E” – Medical doctor’s report even when no medical doctor was called as a witness and that Court’s conclusion that “Res ipsa loquitur” applied to arrive at its judgment. The Court of Appeal resolved issue 1 in the Appellant’s favour on the ground that exhibits “C” and “E” were of no evidential value contending that the medical doctor who prepared the reports should as an expert have been called upon to give evidence and invoking the provisions of section 57 of the Evidence Act to allow the appeal in part for the above stated reason. The Court of Appeal resolved issue 2 in favour of the Respondent on the basis that “Res ipsa loquitur” was application and awarded the sum of N300,000.00 damages for negligence in favour of the Respondent. Aggrieved, the Appellants have yet again appealed to this court. Their notice of appeal dated the 17th July, 2003 at pages 164-167 of the Record of Appeal consists of five grounds of appeal reproduced hereunder devoid of particulars:-

“GROUNDS ONE

The Justices of the Court Appeal erred in law when they failed to consider the appeal based on the issues properly formulated by the appellants rather, their Lordships re-arranged the issues on the erroneous grounds that there was no ground 4. And this occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

GROUND TWO

The Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when having held that the Appellants’ Issue One succeeded yet in a contradictory manner affirmed the award of N300,000.00 as damages for negligence and this occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

GROUND THREE

Their Lordships misdirected themselves in law when having found that Section 57 of Evidence Act was not complied with by the trial judge yet their Lordships came to a wrong conclusion that Res Ipsa Loquitur applied in this case.

GROUND FOUR

The Learned Justice of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they abandoned the Appellants’ amended/additional grounds of appeal and instead relied on the original grounds in determining the appeal and this occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

GROUND FIVE

The Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they failed to differentiate between the 2nd Appellant and the Plateau State Medical Board and wrongly held that it was the 2nd Appellant who referred the Respondent to Jos University Teaching Hospital and this occasioned a miscarriage of justice.”