Hire Purchase Agreement

…………………….A…………………….

HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment):This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Ebonyi State delivered by Hon. Justice Obande Ogbuinya on 19/01/2006. The facts leading to this appeal are as follows:
The Respondent’s case at the trial Court was that he entered into a Hire Purchase Agreement with the 1st Appellant in respect of a MAN Diesel Truck. The Respondent took possession of the truck and successfully paid up the balance for the said truck. Subsequently, the Respondent had a family problem and needed N104,000.00 for which he approached the 2nd Appellant who agreed to lend him the said amount of money. He also fully refunded the 2nd Appellant, with an interest of 80% per month, a total of N187,200.00.
In March 1997, the Appellants agents claimed the Respondent owed the Appellants some money and they consequently seized and detained the Respondent’s truck. After several unsuccessful attempts to retrieve the said truck, the Respondent instituted an action against the Appellants at the trial Court in 2000 challenging the wrongful seizure and detention of his truck by the Appellants, seeking the following reliefs:-
1. The sum of N5,775,000.00 (Five million seven hundred and seventy five thousand naira) only being special damages for the wrongly and unlawful seizure and detention of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
PARTICULARS OF SPECIAL DAMAGES
(a) The Vehicle was detained from March 1997 to April, 2000, period of 1155 days at the rate of N5,000.00 per day = totaling N5,775,000.00.
2. The sum of N4,225,000.00 as general damages
3. An Order of Court on the Defendants to return forthwith the Plaintiff’s vehicle, or alternatively to pay to the Plaintiff the present cost price of the vehicle fixed at N5,000,000.00 (Five million naira) only
4. An injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents or privies from further intermeddling with the Plaintiff’s enjoyment of his said vehicle.
At the end of trial, the learned trial judge granted the Respondent’s reliefs in part. The sum of N525,000.00 (Five Hundred and Twenty-five thousand Naira) was awarded against the Appellants as General Damages for unlawful seizure and detention of the Respondent’s vehicle and N974,000.00(Nine Hundred and Seventy Four Thousand Naira) as alternative prayer in relief 3 of the claim, being the proved price of the truck.
Dissatisfied, the Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal on 23/1/2006. The Appellants rely on the amended Notice of Appeal filed on 06/06/2013 and deemed filed on 22/01/2016. Record of Appeal was transmitted on 04/02/2009 and deemed transmitted on 20/1/2016. Appellant’s brief of argument was filed on 11/3/2016.Appellant’s Reply brief was filed on 6/12/2016. The Respondent filed a Notice of Cross-Appeal on 14/3/2006. At the hearing of the appeal, the Respondent’s counsel informed the Court that the Cross-Appeal had been abandoned by the Respondent. Respondent’s brief of argument was filed on 18/11/2016 and deemed filed on 21/11/2016.
In the brief settled by Chief Chris Cameron Eze for the Appellants, the following issues were identified for determination.
1. Was the lower Court right when he awarded the Respondent the sum of N974,000.00 as loss of use of the vehicle having dismissed his claim of N5,775,000.00 (Five Million Seven Hundred and Seventy Five Thousand Naira) only as not proved in special damages.
2. Was the case of Attorney-General of Cross River State v. Attorney-General of the Federation & Anor (2005) 15 NWLR (Pt. 947) 71 at 111 rightly applied in this suit in the award of damages of N974,000.00?
3. Is the Respondent in law entitled to general damages in this suit in this event?
The Respondent’s counsel Emeka Uwakwein his brief of argument formulated two issues for determination as follows:
1. Whether in view of the pleadings and evidence before the lower Court, was the learned trial judge justified in relying on the Supreme Court decision in Attorney-General of Cross River State v. Attorney-General of the Federation & Anor (supra) in awarding the sum of N974,000.00 in favour of the Respondent as the proved cost of the vehicle when he failed to prove entitlement to the claimed sum of N5,000,000.00?
2. Whether the unchallenged findings of the lower Court in the circumstances of this case justified an award of general damages in favour of the Respondent for the wrongful seizure of his vehicle?
Having read the record and the arguments of both counsel, I am of the view that only one