It is settled that negligence is a question of fact and not of law. So, each case must be decided in the light of facts pleaded and proved. No one case, is exactly like another. – NIMPAR, J.C.A. Diamond Bank v. Mocok (2019)
SHARE ON
The learned trial Judge on issue of Negligence rightly stated that Negligence is a question of fact and not law. Therefore each case must be decided in the light of its own facts. – Nwodo, JCA. OLAM v. Intercontinental Bank (2009)
In AGBONMAGBE BANK LTD. v. C.F.A.O 1966 ANLR S.C. 130, the Supreme Court on what a plaintiff suing for Negligence must establish held that plaintiff must show that the Defendant owed him a duty of care and that he suffered damage in consequence of the Defendant’s failure to take care.
The onus of proving negligence is on the claimant who alleges it and unless and until that is proved, the onus of proof does not shift. In other words, where a claimant pleads and relies on negligence by conduct or action of a defendant, the claimant must prove by evidence the conduct or action and the circumstance of its occurrence which gave rise to the breach of the duty of care owed the claimant. It is only after this that the burden shifts to the defendant to adduce evidence to challenge the negligence on his part Universal Trust Bank of Nigeria Plc Vs Ozoemena supra.
— H.A.O. Abiru, JCA. P.W. Ltd. v. Mansel Motors (2017) – CA/J/240/2016
The authorities are replete that a successful plea of negligence consists of proving the trivet issues of duty, breach and subsequent damages. In the case of GKF Investment Nigeria Ltd v. Nigerian Telecommunications Plc [2009] 15 NWLR (Pt 1164) 34, it is settled that the particulars of the pleading the breach of a duty of care is required as stated supra and it can neither be assumed or indirect; where there is no real duty to be exercised by the defendants, negligence will have no limbs to stand and any claim articulated thereon will fail.
— O. Oyewumi, J. Aseidu v Japaul (2019) – NICN/AK/01/2016
In the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) AC 562/(2002)12 WRN 10, the locus classicus on negligence, the erstwhile House of Lords evolved three ingredients of negligence, which a plaintiff must establish, thus: that the defendant owed him a duty of care, that there was a breach of the duty and that the breach caused him injury or damage. These three ingredients have since been accepted and assimilated in the corpus of Nigerian jurisprudence, see Agbomagbe Bank Ltd. v. CFAO (1967) NMLR 173, (1966) 1SCNLR 367; FBN Plc. v. Associated Motors Co. Ltd. (1998) 10NWLR (Pt. 570) 441; Abubakar v. Joseph (supra); Diamond Bank Ltd. v. P.I.C. Ltd. (supra); Ighreriniovo v. S.C.C. (Nig.) Ltd. (supra).
— Ogbuinya JCA. Benjamin Agi V. Access Bank Plc (formerly known and called Intercontinental Bank Plc (CA/MK/86/2012, 28 Nov 2013)
The Supreme Court in the case of HAMZA V. KURE (2010) LPELR-1351(SC) (P. 14, paras. E-G) Per Mohammad J.S.C., defined negligence thus: “As far back as 1856, Lord Alderson B., defined negligence to be the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. See: BLYTH V. BIRMINGHAM WATERWORKS COMPANY. [1856] 11 Exch. 781 at 784. It may consist in omitting to do something which ought to be done or in doing something which ought to be done either in a different manner or not at all.”
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry