Negligence is the tort that protects a person from careless action from another, that can injure or harm him. The law places a duty of care on various persons in various circumstances, where such a person breaches the duty of care placed upon him by law and that breach resulted in injury to the person to whom such duty is owed, the bearer of the duty is said to have been negligent and will be liable in damages to repair the injury caused.
– Tukur JCA. Odulate v. FBN (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)
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 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
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 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