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 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)
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)
LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES v. BALLANYE, 2013 1 NWLR (PT. 1336) 527, The Supreme Court Per Kalgo J.S.C. had this to say: “The general principle is that the tort of negligence arises when a legal duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff is breached and to succeed in an action for negligence the plaintiff must proof by the preponderance of evidence or the balance of probabilities that: “(a) the defendant owed him a duty of care; (b) the duty of care was breached; (c) the defendant suffered damages arising from the breach.” NIGERIAN AIRWAYS LTD. v. ABE (1988) 4 NWLR (PT. 90) 524; ANYAH V. IMO CONCORDE HOTELS LTD. (2002) 18 NWLR (PT. 799) 377; AGBONMAGBE BANK LTD. V. C.F.A.O. (1966) 1 ALL NLR 140 AT 145; UNIVERSAL TRUST BANK OF NIGERIA V. FIDELIA OZOEMENA (2007) 3 NWLR (PT. 1022) 448; (2007) 1-2 SC (PT. 11) 211.
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
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)
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)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry