A. E BRIGHT FUTURES MOTORS NIGERIA LIMITED & ANOR v. CHIZOBA

…………………….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

…………………….B…………………….

issue can be crystalized for determination. I have set out same below:
Whether the trial judge was right to have awarded the Respondent the various sums it did in satisfaction of the claims before the Court.

SOLE ISSUE
Whether the trial judge was right to have awarded the Respondent the various sums it did in satisfaction of the claims before the Court.
Learned Appellants counsel submitted that the Respondent never claimed the sum of N974,000.00 in his statement of claim at the trial Court as special damages for loss of use. He claimed the sum of N5,775,000.00 as loss of use for 1155 days at N5,000 per day and the claim was dismissed as not strictly proved in special damages. Counsel submitted that the Respondent merely gave evidence that N974,000.00 was the cost of the vehicle as at the time he entered into the Hire Purchase Agreement.
Appellants counsel submitted that the Courts must strive to limit themselves to the claim made by the parties and adjudicate just that and must resist the temptation of making out cases which parties did not make and adjudicate. Counsel insisted that where there is no claim, proof goes to no issue. Counsel cited Pada Sabasanya v. Joe Amuasi with no citation.
Counsel for the Appellants submitted that it is not for the Court to placate a party who fails to prove his claim in law by an award which is totally indefensible in law. Counsel argued that the application of the case of Attorney-General of Cross River State v. Attorney-General of the Federation & Anor (2005) 15 NWLR Pt. 947 Pg. 71 by the trial Court was erroneous because it is a case where a party claimed a higher amount but proved a lesser amount. Counsel argued that the Court has jurisdiction to award the party the lesser amount as what he proved and that the proper procedure is that issue are properly joined by parties on either the amount claimed or less. Counsel insisted that no issues were joined on the amount of N974,000.00 awarded to the Respondent as special damages for detinue.
Counsel for the Appellants submitted further that once the Respondent had been awarded cost of the vehicle, he had been fully compensated for the wrong done to him by the Appellants and was not entitled to any other compensation by way of general damages. Counsel argued that the Respondent was entitled to only one ground of claim which is loss of use which comes under special damages. Counsel relied on the case of Hadley v. Baxindale and submitted that the award of N525,000.00 by the learned trial judge amounts to a sentimental award not based on any principle of law.
Counsel urged the Court to allow the appeal and set aside the awards of N974,000.00 and N525,000.00.
On the other hand, learned Respondent’s counsel submitted that the Appellants notice of appeal tied the award of the sum of N974,000.00 to the cost price of the vehicle while in their issue for determination, it was ascribed to loss of use. Counsel contended that this is contrary to the principle of law that issues must flow from the ground of appeal. Counsel submitted that the learned trial judge awarded the proved cost of N974,000.00 as the market value of the vehicle and dismissed the Respondent’s claim for loss of use of the vehicle in its entirety for being unproved. Counsel cited Momodu v Momoh (1991) 1 NWLR Pt. 169 Pg. 608, J.C. Ltd v Ezenwa(1996) 4 NWLR Pt. 443 Pg. 391.
Respondent’s counsel argued that the Appellants failed to challenge the oral evidence of the Respondent which was corroborated by Exhibits A and B which justified the award of N974,000.00 awarded in favour of the Respondent.
Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the trial Court rightly relied on the case of Attorney-General of Cross River State v. Attorney-General of the Federation &Anor in awarding N974,000.00 which was proved in place of the N5,000,000.00 claimed by the Respondent.Counsel relied on the case of F.B.N Plc v. Oniyangi (2000) 6 NWLR Pt. 661 Pg. 497 to rebut the argument of the Appellants that the award of N974,000.00 was wrong having not been pleaded by the Respondent. Counsel submitted that the Respondent is entitled to any amount proved at trial and that it is trite that a Court can award less than the amount claimed in the statement of claim if that is what is proved but cannot award more than the amount claimed. Counsel cited Ekpe v Fagbemi (1978) 1 LRN 137, Owena Bank Plc v Olatunji (2002) 13 NWLR Pt. 781 Pg. 259.
Learned Respondent’s counsel submitted that the law is that in the award of general damages, it is within the discretion of a trial Court to make its own

…………………….C…………………….

assessment but which must be borne out from the evidence in Court. Counsel cited Okoko v. Dakolo (2006) 14 NWLR Pt. 1000 Pg. 401.Counsel submitted that the learned trial judge rightly berated the Appellants for their uncivilized conduct by resorting to self-help in interfering with the Respondent’s ownership of the vehicle and that it was only legally justifiable to award general damages against the Appellants for such conduct. Counsel cited Elochim (Nig.) Ltd & Ors v. Mbadiwe (1986) 1 NWLR Pt. 14 Pg. 47.

Respondent’s counsel argued that the seizure of the Respondent’s vehicle by the Appellants was a breach of the Respondent’s right to property which is a Fundamental Right which attracts damages however slight.
Respondent’s counsel urged the Court to adopt the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Newbreed Org. Ltd v. Erhomosele(2006) 5 NWLR Pt. 974 Pg. 499 in considering the finding of the learned trial judge that the plaintiff will no longer use his vehicle to eke a living which has the trappings of loss of earning. Counsel submitted that the Supreme Court held that loss of earnings translates to monetary loss which makes it necessary to award damages even if the plaintiff failed to prove or show the amount he lost.
Learned Respondent’s counsel argued that even though the Respondent was unable to show how much he lost as earnings from the vehicle, the Court would not leave him empty handed on account of such failure provided the Appellants were found culpable in the wrongful seizure and detention of the vehicle.
Respondent’ counsel submitted that the Appellants argument would have been justified if the Respondent had been awarded damages for the loss of use of the vehicle and in addition, the cost of the vehicle and general damages. Having not awarded any damages for the loss of use, the issue of double compensation clearly does not arise.
Counsel for the Respondent finally submitted that the six principles outlined by the Supreme Court in UBA Plc v. BTL Ind. Ltd (2006) 19 NWLR Pt. 1013 Pg. 61 have not been proved by the Appellants to warrant this Court disturbing the award of damages by the trial Court.
Appellants counsel in his reply brief submitted that the Respondent’s claim of a breach of his Fundamental Right cannot be subsumed in this suit by mere implication. Counsel submitted that it must be claimed by the Respondentas a head of claim.
In response to the Respondent’s submission that the award of N525,000.00 general damages was because of the Appellants resort to self-help, Appellants counsel submitted that the trial Court made it clear that the award was for the unlawful seizure and detention of the vehicle which amounts to loss of use in our law of detinue. Counsel insisted that loss of use comes under special damages and not general damages and urged the Court to set aside the award of N525,000.00 general damages.
OPINION
Before I go into the issue proper, learned counsel for the Respondent raised the issue of the discrepancy between the Notice of Appeal of the Appellants and the Appellants issue one formulated therefrom.
It is trite that issues must flow from a ground or grounds of appeal. If an issue is not related to any ground of appeal, it is incompetent and ought to be ignored. See Omo v. JSC Delta State (2000) 12 NWLR Pt. 682 Pg. 444.
There are myriads of authorities on the essence of issues raised for determination in briefs of argument. Where a careful perusal of the issue and the ground or even the grounds of appeal makes it patently clear that an issue has no relationship with any of the grounds of appeal, they become incompetent and will be struck out by the Court. See Contract Resources Nig. Ltd. v. Standard Trust Bank Ltd. (2013) LPELR-19934(SC), Nwankwo v. Yar’Adua (2010) 12 NWLR Pt. 1209 Pg. 518.
The essence of a ground of appeal and its particulars is to acquaint the Respondent with the issue involved in the appeal. So long as that purpose is served, a ground of appeal cannot be seen as defective and therefore liable to be struck together with any issue formulated therefrom.
By virtue of Order 7 Rule 3 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2016, no ground of appeal which is vague or general in terms and which discloses no reasonable ground of appeal shall be permitted. A ground of appeal may be described as vague when it is couched in a manner which does not give allowance for its being understood. Order 7 Rule 4 also provides that an Appellant shall not be heard in support of any ground not mentioned in the Notice of Appeal,

…………………….D…………………….

except with the leave of Court.
The Appellants Ground one shorn of its particulars as shown on the amended Notice of Appeal is as follows:
The learned trial judge misdirected himself in law when he stated in his judgment at page 133 of the record as follows:
The final pronouncement puts to rest any doubts as to the plaintiff’s entitlement in this suit to the sum of N974,000.00 proved as the cost price of the vehicle as at May 1995; what with this sum being lesser than the N3,000,000.00 he claimed in his alternative relief in 13(3) above
The Appellants issue one as formulated is as follows:
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.
It is clear from the foregoing that the Appellants grouse is the award of N974,000.00 by the trial Court in favour of the Respondent of the amount paid in 1995 for the vehicle which is in my view, sufficient notice to the Respondent of the issue involved in the appeal.
Now to the substance of the appeal.
Damages are the pecuniary recompense given by process of law for the actionable wrong done to a person by another. In other words, damages generally is money claimed and/or ordered to be paid to a person who has been wronged by a wrongdoer as compensation for loss or injury.
Damages are generally classified into general and special damages. The position of the law is that general damages relate to all items of loss which the Plaintiff is not required to specify in his pleadings or specifically prove at trial. However, special damages relate to all items of loss which must be specifically pleaded by the Plaintiff and subsequently proved by evidence. See Professor Akinkugbe v. Ewulum Holdings (2008) 12 NWLR Pt. 1098 Pg. 375; R. O. Iyere v. Bendel Feed & Flour (2008) 12 NWLR Pt. 1119 Pg. 300.
On the distinction between special and general damages, Lord Macnaghten commented as follows in the English case of StromsBruks AktieBolag v. Hutchinson (1905) A.C 515 (H.L):-
General damages, as I understand the term, are such as the law will presume to be the direct, natural or probable consequence of the act complained of. Special damages on the other hand, are such as the law will not infer from the nature of the act. They do not follow in ordinary course. They are exceptional in their character and, therefore, they must be claimed specially and proved strictly.
See also Obasuyi v. Business Ventures Ltd (2000) 5 NWLR Pt. 658 Pg. 668, Adim v NBC Ltd. (2010) 9 NWLR Pt. 1200 Pg. 543.
From the record, the Respondent claimed damages under two heads – special and general damages. Let us consider the reliefs sought at trial by the Respondent and the Orders ofthe learned trial judge.
At page 12 of the Record of Appeal, the Respondent’s claims as contained in the statement of claim were for the following:
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 page 127 of the Record, the learned trial judge held in respect of the Respondent???s first relief that the Respondent failed to discharge the burden of proof of special damages of realizing N5,000 per day for the use of the seized vehicle having not adduced sufficient evidence to prove or substantiate his bare assertion. The relief thus failed and was refused.
The learned trial judge found as a fact that the Appellants wrongfully seized and detained the Respondent’s vehicle and the Court held that they were liable to pay general damages in the sum of N525,000.00.
On the Respondent’s main relief 3, the Court found that the vehicle had been sold to a third party by the Appellants and as such, an order of restitution

…………………….E…………………….

the vehicle to the Respondent would be tantamount to the Court granting an order in vain. The Court held that the Respondent’s claim under this relief amounts to special damages which requires strict proof. The Respondent claimed N5,000,000.00 price of the vehicle at the time the cause of action arose. However, the trial Court held that the Respondent did not prove the N5,000,000.00 as the current price of the vehicle but had proved only the price of the vehicle at the time of the Hire Purchase agreement and granted the sum of N974,000.00 as the proved price in the alternative claim in Relief 3.
The Court held in respect of prayer four that as long as the vehicle was not to be returned by the Appellants, the injunction being sought therein would also amount to granting an order in vain.
Having found and held as enumerated above, the learned trial judge ordered at pages 134 & 135 as follows:
Accordingly, I hereby order as follows;
(a) That the Plaintiff’s claim for the sum of N5,775,000.00 as special damages for the unlawful seizure and detention of his vehicle be and is hereby dismissed;
(b) That the defendants shall jointly and severally, pay to the Plaintiff the sum of N525,000.00 (Five Hundred and Twenty-five thousand Naira) only as general damages for the unlawful seizure and detention of his vehicle;
(c) That the Plaintiff’s principal claim, for the return of the vehicle in paragraph 13(3) of the claim, be and is hereby dismissed;
(d) That the defendants shall, jointly and severally, pay to the plaintiff the sum of N974,000.00 (Nine Hundred and seventy Four Thousand Naira) only as the cost of the vehicle as alternatively prayer for in paragraph 13(3) of the claim;
(e) That the Plaintiff’s prayer for injunction against the defendants, their agents and privies over the vehicle be and is hereby dismissed; and
(f) That the defendants shall, jointly and severally, pay to the Plaintiff the costs of this action assessed and fixed at N2,000.00 (Two Thousand Naira) only.
I will take the award of special damages first. Appellants??? counsel argued strenuously that the learned trial judge ought not to have awarded the sum of N974,000.00 as special damages for loss of use having dismissed the claim of N5,775,000.00 claimed by the Respondent.
Apparently the Appellants counsel is mistaken as to the rationale for the award of N974,000.00 by the learned trial judge. The trial Court clearly held that the award of N974,000.00 was in respect of the Respondent’s third claim of N5,000,000.00 as the cost of the vehicle (being an alternate prayer to the prayer for an order of restitution of the vehicle by the Appellants).
This relief in question was a claim in special damages which requires proof. The trial Court held that the Respondent failed to prove by adequate pleading and evidence, the sums of N3,000,000.00 or N5,000,000.00 at the time the cause of action arose as the cost of the vehicle but only succeeded in proving the sum of N974,000.00 as the price of the vehicle as at May, 1995 when he purchased it. The Court then proceeded to award the sum of N974,000.00 as replacement cost of the vehicle which the Appellants had illegally detained and subsequently sold off to a third party.
Counsel for the Appellants attempted to distinguish between the facts of the case of Att. Gen. Cross River State v. Att. Gen. Federation &Anor (Supra)and that of this case in his submission that the trial Court ought not to have awarded a lesser sum when the amount claimed was not proved.
In Att. Gen. Cross River State v. Att. Gen. Federation &Anor (Supra), the third issue for determination before the full panel of the Supreme Court sitting in its original jurisdiction was whether the Plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the sum of N3,232,433,537.49 (Three billion, two hundred and thirty-two million, four hundred and thirty-three thousand, five hundred and thirty-seven naira, forty-nine kobo).
The plaintiff had written to the Federal Government through the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) demanding for a proper account of its entitlement. In response, the RMAFC wrote to the Accountant General admitting that the Plaintiff was entitled to the sum of N3,232,433,537.49 (Three billion, two hundred and thirty-two million, four hundred and thirty-three thousand, five hundred and thirty-seven naira, forty-nine kobo) being its entitlement of the revenue accruing to the Federation Account from mineral oil exploration activities within its boundaries from May 1997 to July 2012.
In a

…………………….F…………………….

subsequent letter, RMAFC wrote to the Minister of Finance advising that the amount due to the Plaintiff had been reviewed downward to N2,455,888,820.14.
The Supreme Court per Edozie JSC who read the Leading Judgment held as follows:The plaintiff has not placed before this Court evidence to fault the new indices used. It is, therefore, my view that the plaintiff has not established its entitlement to the sum of N3,232,433,537.49 as claimed but the entitlement of the lesser sum of N2, 455,888,820.14 has been proved. While a Court cannot award more than what a plaintiff claims, it can award less. See Ekpenyong& Ors. v. Nyong& Ors. (1975) 2 SC 71, 80-81, Felix Okoli Ezeonwu v. Charles Onyechi and Ors.(1996) 3 NWLR (Pt.438) 499. In the instant case, since there is uncontradicted evidence of the admission by the RMAFC that the plaintiff is entitled to the lesser sum of N2,455,888,820.14, judgment will be entered in favour of the plaintiff in respect of that sum.
It is the law that where in a claim for special damages the plaintiff proves less than the amount claimed, he will be entitled to the lesser amount proved. See Consolidated Breweries Plc v. Aisowieren (2001) 15 NWLR Pt. 736 Pg. 424; Olufosoye v. Fakorede (1993) 1 NWLR Pt. 272Pg. 747.
In PadaChabasaya v. Anwasi (2010) 10 NWLR Pt. 1201 Pg. 163 which the Appellants counsel sought to cite in his Appellants brief, the parties treated an Exhibit as a simple contract of sale between them and no seal was affixed to the document but the learned trial judge, on his own volition, strangely imported the idea that it was under seal. The Supreme Court restated the position of the law that it is not the business of the Court to set up for the parties a case which is different from the one set up by the parties themselves.
With respect to learned counsel for the Appellants, this has absolutely nothing to do with the instant case. Counsel’s argument is utterly misguided.
In this case, the Respondent had claimed in the third head of claim the sum of N5,000,000.00 for the current costs of the vehicle or the return of the vehicle. The vehicle had been sold to a 3rd party. So, its return was impracticable. While the Respondent could not prove that the sum of N5,000,000.00 was the then current price of a new vehicle, the Respondent proved that he originally paid the sum of N974,000.00 for the vehicle and the learned trial judge granted the said sum in substitution for the vehicle on that head of claim. With greatest respect, that in my view is pragmatic justice. I do not see a valid complaint against that order.
The law is trite that where a plaintiff claims more than he can prove, he is awarded a lesser amount. So long as there is evidence in proof of a lesser amount, the Court will grant it in place of the higher amount claimed. The Court cannot be said to have granted what parties did not ask for or made a case for the plaintiff.See Haston Nig Ltd v. A.C.B Plc (2002) 12 NWLR Pt. 782 Pg. 623. I cannot find any reason to disturb the award of N974,000.00 special damages in favour of the Respondent.
Now to the award of general damages.General damages are such that the law will presume to be direct and natural or probable consequence of the act/wrong complained of. Such damages need not be specifically pleaded and proved. They are compensatory damages for harm resulting from the tort for which the plaintiff had sued. The manner in which general damages are qualified is by relying on what could be the opinion and judgment of a reasonable person in the circumstance of a case.See UBN Plc v. Ajabule (2011) 18 NWLR Pt. 1278 Pg. 152, Garri v. Seirafina Nig. Ltd. (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 399) 434, Odulaja v Haddad (1973) 11 SC (Reprint) 216.
The learned trial judge awarded the sum of N525,000.00 as general damages for the Appellants seizure and detention of the Respondent’s vehicle and the Appellants have called upon this Court to interfere with the trial Court’s award of general damages complaining that it amounts to double compensation.
It is trite that award of general damages is based on the discretion of the trial Court, and an appellate Court is not permitted to substitute its feelings or discretion with that of the trial Court, except it is proved that the trial Court did not observe the acceptable rules/principles for making the award, namely: a) The trial Court acted on a wrong principle of law, and/or
b) The trial Court made an estimate of damages which is entirely erroneous that no reasonable tribunal would have made.
See the cases of Edigbonya v. Dumez (1986) 3 NWLR Pt. 31 Pt. 753; Oduwole v. West (2010) 10 NWLR Pt. 1203 Pg. 598.

…………………….G…………………….

The trial Court found as a fact that the Respondent was the bona fide owner of the vehicle and the Appellants wrongly seized, detained and sold same to a third party. I see no reason to vary the award of N525,000.00 general damages as claimed in the 2nd head of claim. It is in my view, not based on any wrong principle of law, neither is it manifestly too excessive as to amount to an erroneous estimate with regard to the circumstances of the case.We must bear in mind that the Respondent had claimed the sum of N4,225,000.00 as damages and he was awarded much less in my view given the circumstances of this case.
Counsel for the Appellants contends that the award of N525,000.00 general damages after the award of N974,000.00 special damages amounts to double compensation.
By the law against double compensation, a party who has been fully compensated under one head of damage for a particular injury cannot be awarded damages in respect of the same injury under another head. In other words, once a party has had damages awarded in his favour for loss suffered, it should not be open to the Court to proceed to award him any additional damages that may look like a bonus. For to do this is to compensate a party twice of the same wrong complained of. See Artra Industries (Nig.) Ltd. v. N.B.C.I. (1998) 4 NWLR Pt.546 Pt. 357.

In K Line Inc. v. K.R. Int. (Nig.) Ltd. (1993) 5 NWLR Pt.292 Pg. 159, it was held that the duty is on the party alleging double compensation to show it, and this he should be able to do by the evidence already adduced in the Court.
Award of special damages on specific items of damages as well as award of general damages is not necessarily double compensation, unless the general damages cannot be separated from the special damages.
In this case, the trial judge did not award damages in favour of the Respondent for loss of earnings which would have been inseparable from the award of general damages, occasioning double compensation. The award of N525,000.00 general damages and N974,000.00 special damages are clearly under different heads of damages. The former for the illegal detention of the Respondent’ car and the latter for the replacement of the Respondent’s car that was illegally detained and subsequently sold off. The issue of double compensation simply does not arise.
A scenario that this Court painted in the case of 7up Bottling Co. Plc v. Celestine Ugwu& Ors in Appeal No. CA/E/198/2010 delivered on 31/01/2017 is apt in this instance. It is as follows: Where a legal practitioner had his wig and gown (his instruments of trade and source of livelihood) torn and destroyed by an assailant and he is unable to go to Court and earn a living while the wig and gown remained torn and useless, if an order replacing his wig and gown is made, what happens to the period when his instruments of trade were unavailable and he could not make a living? It is my firm view that his wig and gown should not only be replaced, a specific sum of award must be made available for the cost of replacing the wig and gown, he should be fully compensated for loss of livelihood during that period. The replacement of his wig and gown where loss and cost of replacement is pleaded and proved constitutes special damages. His compensation for loss of quantifiable income also constitutes special damages. The general inconvenience suffered by him during the period would ground a claim for general damages.
In the same vein, the cost of the vehicle constitutes special damages while the general inconvenience for the unlawful seizure and detention of the Respondent’s vehicle grounded his claim for general damages. The sole issue is accordingly resolved against the Appellants.
In all, the appeal is without merit and it is hereby dismissed. The judgment of the High Court of Ebonyi State delivered by Hon. Justice Obande Ogbuinya on 19/01/2006 in Suit No. HAB/72/2000 is hereby affirmed. Costs of N200,000.00 in favour of the Respondent against the Appellants.
Appeal Dismissed.
IGNATUS IGWE AGUBE, J.C.A.: I have read the erudite and well reasoned Judgment of my Lord the Presiding Justice and am in total agreement with the conclusion reached in dismissing the Appellants Appeal for want of merit. From the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, the Appellants cannot complain that the Respondent was doubly compensated in damages. For the seizure of the Respondents vehicle and selling it out to a third party, the Respondents was entitled to replacement of the lost vehicle

…………………….H…………………….

and the sum N974,000.00 which he (Respondent) was able to prove as the cost price of the vehicle rather than the sum of N5,000,000.00 as claimed, was rightly awarded him under the principle/maximm restitution intergrum, to compensate him and restore him to the status quo ante bellum.
Furthermore, he was also entitled to the sum of N525,000.00 as general damages for the inconvenience and mental stress suffered for the tort of seizure and dentine of the said truck for the number of years by the Appellants before Judgment was eventually entered in his favour. Accordingly, I too shall dismiss the Appeal, affirm the judgment of Ogbuinya, J. as he then was and abide by the order as to cost as made by my Lord the PJ.
RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU, J.C.A.: I had the advantage of reading in draft, the lead judgment just delivered by my brother- Helen MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, JCA.
I agree with his opinion and conclusions.
My brother judge has meticulously considered the issues proffered by determination particularly in the area of the award of damages.
I also resolve the sole issue for determination in favour of the Appellants. The appeal is devoid of merit and I affirm the judgment of the High Court of Ebonyi State delivered by Hon. Justice Obande Ogbuinya on the 19th of January, 2006, in suit No. HAB/72/2000.
I abide by the consequential order made as to costs.
Appearances