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)
SHARE ON
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)
In all cases in which damages is being claimed for negligence the Court is to bear it in mind that negligence is a matter of or question of fact and not law and thus a finding as of fact of the act of omission or commission of the defendant must first be made before damages could be assessed. See also M. O. Kanu & Sons Co. Ltd v. First Bank of Nigeria Plc (2006) LPELR 1797 (SC).
— O. Oyewumi, J. Aseidu v Japaul (2019) – NICN/AK/01/2016
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
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)
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
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
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry