Before Their Lordships
STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, Justice of The Court of Appeal
PETER OLABISI IGE, Justice of The Court of Appeal
EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, Justice of The Court of Appeal
Between
MALLAM NURAEN TAIWO HASSAN DINDI Appellant
And
1. EKESON BROTHERS TRANSPORT COMPANY LIMITED
2. JUDE EZE Respondents
…………………….A…………………….
AGIM, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal No. CA/A/323/2015 was commenced on 8/12/2014 when the appellant filed a notice of appeal against the judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory in suit No: FCT/HC/CV/93/2011, delivered on 29/9/2014 by Olukayode A. Adeniyi J. The notice of appeal contains 2 grounds of appeal.
By a notice filed on 10/01/2019, the appellant withdrew the appeal against the 2nd respondent, Jude Eze.
Both sides filed, exchanged and adopted their respective briefs as follows- appellant’s brief and 1st respondent’s brief.
The appellant’s brief raised the following issues for determination-
1. Was the learned trial Judge right to hold that the 1st Respondent was not vicariously liable for the acts of the 2nd defendant who was its servant in its employment when he carried out the alleged acts in the course of his official duty (Distilled from Ground 1).
2. Was the learned trial Judge right to excuse the 1st Respondent from liability on the basis of Exhibit D1 when contract of employment Clause 16 and 11 (IX) relied upon merely advised and warned its employees from engaging in fight and molesting passengers without clearly excusing/absolving the company from liability in event of contravention (Distilled from Ground 2).
…………………….B…………………….
The 1st respondent’s brief restated and thereby adopted the above issues raised for determination in the appellant’s brief.
I will determine this appeal on the basis of the said issues raised for determination in the appellant’s brief.
The part of the judgment of the trial Court complained against in this appeal reads thusly- This now leads me to the determination of the second issue under consideration, as to whether or not the 1st Defendant is vicariously liable for the assault and battery committed by the 2nd Defendant against the Plaintiff.
