Judiciary-Poetry-Logo
JPoetry

GENERAL DAMAGES ARE PRESUMED BY THE LAW

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Dictum

General damages are what the law presumes, but they must flow from the type of wrong complained about by the plaintiff and they frequently result from the tort for which the plaintiff has sued. They are at large in that the quantum of general damages need not be pleaded and proved as they are supposed to be a compensation for the loss or inconvenience flowing naturally from the wrong. They are thus not quantifiable but assessable by the trial Court taking the relevant matters into consideration.

– Yahaya, JCA. MTN v. Ezugwu (2018)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY OF JUDICIAL ACTS

This practice is informed by the presumption, reinforced by section 168(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 (formerly section 150(1) of the Evidence Act, 1990), that provides that when a judicial act is shown to have been done in a manner substantially regular, it is presumed that all formal requisites for its validity were complied with. There is, in this further appeal, no viable complaint against the formal requisites for the validity of the concurrent judgments, the subject of this further appeal.

– Eko JSC. Chemiron v. Stabilini (2018)

Was this dictum helpful?

OBJECT OF AN AWARD OF GENERAL DAMAGES

The object of an award of general damages is to compensate the plaintiff, as far as money can do so, for the damages, loss or injury he has suffered. The guiding principle is restitution in integrum. It envisages that a party which has been damnified by the act which is called in question must be put in the position he would have been if he had not suffered the wrong which he is now being compensated for. In other words, the loss inevitably and unavoidably flowing from the breach. See: Chief S.I. Agu Vs General Oil Ltd. (2015) LPELR -24613 (SC) @ 31-32 G-B; NEPA Vs R.O. Alli & Anor. (1992) 10 SCNJ 34; Ijebu-Ode L.G. Vs Adedeji Balogun & Co., Ltd (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt.166) 136.

— K.M.O. Kekere-Ekun, JSC. MTN v. Corporate (2019) – SC.674/2014

Was this dictum helpful?

THERE IS A PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY OF OFFICIAL ACTS

If there was any short coming in the Exhibit F, that made it to fail to comply with the adoption laws of Eastern Nigeria, as alleged by the Appellants, that cannot, in my opinion, be the fault of the Respondent or his adoptors, Aduba and his wife, and would not discount from the presumption of its regularity as official Government instrument, authorizing the acceptance and adoption of the Respondent into the home of Mr. and Mrs. Aduba Nwaemere as a member of their family. In the eye of the law, the presumption of regularity of official act remains strong (See section 168 of the Evidence Act 2011), and so is Exhibit F presumed in favour of the Respondent. Again, equity looks as done, that which ought to be done.

– Mbaba JCA. Aduba v. Aduba (2018)

Was this dictum helpful?

GENERAL DAMAGES ARISES BY INFERENCE OF LAW

On the general damages claimed, it needs not be specifically pleaded. It arises from inference of law and need not be proved by evidence. It suffices once generally averred in the pleadings. As I stated earlier, they are presumed by the law to be the direct and probable consequence of the act of the defendant complained of. Unlike special damages, it is generally incapable of substantially exact calculation.

– ARIWOOLA J.S.C. Union Bank v. Chimaeze (2014)

Was this dictum helpful?

COURT DOES NOT ACT ON PRESUMPTION

It is very elementary that no court acts on presumption. It acts on hard facts.

– Amaizu, J.C.A. Adeniran v. Olagunju (2001)

Was this dictum helpful?

GENERAL DAMAGES ARE INCAPABLE OF EXACT CALCULATION

General damages are presumed by law to be the direct and probable consequence of the act complained of. General damages are generally incapable of substantially exact calculation. There is therefore no scientific, or empirical formula to be followed in arriving at an award of general damages. That is why as far back as 1870 it was held that general damages are such as the jury may give, when the judge cannot point out any measure by which they are to be assessed except the opinion and judgment of reasonable men. See PREHN V. THE ROYAL BANK OF LIVERPOOL (1870) LR 5 EXCHIBIT 92. Therefore as long as the award of general damages aligns with what can be perceived or considered as one that can, in the opinion of reasonable men be capable of being awarded, there will be no reason to disturb the award.

– O. Daniel-Kalio, JCA. Egypt v. Abdoulaye (2017) – CA/K/540/2014

Was this dictum helpful?

Load More
No more related dictum to show.

Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry

Facebook Twitter Whatsapp Telegram

Humongouz Empire

© 2024

designed by Humongouz Ztudio. 

TO – 491 | UO – 6 | GO – 407 | BO – 78

External link(s)

BOOK: First 2-years as a Law Student: Experiences and Lessons.