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
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
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 tort of negligence is a civil wrong consisting of breach of a legal duty to care which results in damage. Thus, three things must be proved before the liability to pay damages for tort of negligence and these are:- (a) That the defendant owned the plaintiff a duty to exercise due care. (b) That the defendant failed to exercise due care, and (c) That the defendant’s failure was the cause of the injury in the proper sense of that term.
– Shuaibu JCA. Diamond Bank v. Mocok (2019)
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
To succeed in an action for negligence, the law is settled as to the standard of pleading and proof required. As a matter of law therefore; a plaintiff who intends to be victorious in negligence action must plead the particulars of negligence alleged and give cogent and credible evidence at the trial in line with the detailed pleadings. lt is not sufficient pleading for a plaintiff to make a blanket allegation of negligence against the defendant without giving detailed particulars of the items of negligence relied on as well as the duty of care the defendant owes him. See: DIAMOND BANK LTD. V. PARTNERSHIP INVESTMENT CO. LTD. & ANOR (2009) 18 NWLR (PT. 1172) 67; UNIVERSAL TRUST BANK OF NIGERIA V. FIDELIA OZOEMENA (2007) 3 NWLR (PT. 1022) 448; 1-2 SC (PT. 11) 211 KOYA V. UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA LTD (1997) LPELR 1711; (1997) 1 NWLR (PT. 481) 251; MTN NIGERIA COMMUNICATIONS LTD V. MR. GANIYU SADIKU (2013) LPELR 27705 CA.
— 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