STOP SEEING INTRUSIVE ADS, & HAVE PREMIUM FEATURES? Stop seeing intrusive ads and have a smoother reading experience, once you sign up on Judicial Poetry. Sign up now!

PARTICULARS OF NEGLIGENCE AND FRAUD MUST BE PROVIDED

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

It is settled law that in an action on negligence, the party suing must give particulars of the alleged negligence and to recover on the negligence pleaded in those particulars, see Spasco Vehicle v. Alraine (supra); Koya v.UBA Ltd. (1997) 1 NWLR (Pt. 481) 251; Machine Umudje v. SPDC(Nig.) Ltd. (1975) 9-11 SC 155; Diamond Bank Ltd. v. P.I.C. Ltd.(2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 67; First Bank Nigeria Plc. v. Excel Plastic Industries Ltd. (supra). By the same token, a party who predicates his case on fraud must supply particulars of the fraud in his pleading, see Usen v.Bank Of W/A Ltd. (supra); Ntuks v. NPA (2007) 13 NWLR (Pt.1051) 392; Okoli v. Morecab Finance (Nig.) Ltd. (2007) 14 NWLR(Pt. 1053) 37; Ezenwa v. Oko (2008) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1075) 610; Eyav. Olopade (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1259) 505; Otukpo v. John (2012)7 NWLR (Pt. 1299) 357; Belgore v. Ahmed (2013) 8 NWLR (Pt.1355) 60; Order 15 rule 3(1) of the Benue State High Court (CivilProcedure) Rules, 2007. Fraud connotes crime and when alleged in civil proceedings, it behoves the party alleging it to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, not on the balance of probability, see Otukpo v.John (supra); section 138(1) of the Evidence Act, 2004 (section135(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011).

— Ogbuinya JCA. Benjamin Agi V. Access Bank Plc (formerly known and called Intercontinental Bank Plc (CA/MK/86/2012, 28 Nov 2013)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

negligence

PROOF OF DUTY OF CARE IS REQUISITE FOR NEGLIGENCE TO SUCCEED

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

Was this dictum helpful?

NEGLIGENCE INGREDIENT

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.

Was this dictum helpful?

THE APPROACH TO A CLAIM IN NEGLIGENCE

The approach to a claim in negligence comes into operation in the following circumstances: (a) On proof of the happening of an unexplained occurrence; (b) When the occurrence is one which would not have happened in the ordinary course of things without the negligence on the part of somebody other than the plaintiff and (c) The circumstances point to the negligence in question being that of the defendant rather than that of any other person.

– Shuaibu JCA. Diamond Bank v. Mocok (2019)

Was this dictum helpful?

NEGLIGENCE IS A MATTER OF FACT, NOT LAW

This position of the law is inevitable because what amounts to negligence is not law but a question of fact which must be decided according to the facts and circumstances of a particular case. See: KALLZA v. JAMAKANI TRANSPORT LTD. (1961) ALL NLR 747; NGILARI V. MOTHERCAT LIMITED (1999) LPELR SC; (1999) 13 NWLR (PT. 636) 626.

— U. Onyemenam, JCA. P.W. Ltd. v. Mansel Motors (2017) – CA/J/240/2016

Was this dictum helpful?

THREE INGREDIENT TO PROVE NEGLIGENCE

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)

Was this dictum helpful?

BURDEN OF PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE

Furthermore, the burden of proof of negligence falls on the appellant who alleges negligence. This is because negligence is a question of fact, and it is the duty of the party who asserts it to prove it. Thus, the failure to prove particulars of negligence pleaded is fatal to the case of the appellant.

– M.L. Shuaibu, J.C.A. Dekan Nig. Ltd. v. Zenith Bank Plc – CA/C/12/2020

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.