It is the law that before a court begins a meaningful assessment of damages, it must be sure of the nature of the claim, that is to say, whether the claim is in contract or in tort, if in tort, the nature of the wrong alleged. As mentioned above, the principles guiding the award of damages are different from those guiding the award of damages in contract. It is clear that the claim in tort is negligence, it is also necessary to make further inquiry whether the tortuous conduct found had occasioned personal injuries, economic loss or other social losses or a combination of those losses.
The settled position of the law which remains inviolate is that a Court will not award double compensation as damages against the same misdeed. See UNION BANK v. EMOLE (2001) 12 S.C.N.J 74 at 89. In ALHAJI ISIYAKU YAKUBU v. ADAMAWA STATE GOVERNMENT & ORS (2020) LPELR-51114 (CA) Pages 39-40 Per BAYERO, JCA Stated: ‘’The law frowns at award of double compensation. It is the law that where a party has been compensated fully under specific claims, it would be most inappropriate to compensate him again under general damages as that would amount to double compensation.
It is an established principle that if a plaintiff recovers in full under special damages, he cannot be entitled to general damages for that would amount to double compensation. See the case of U.T.C. (Nig.) Plc v. Philips (2012) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1295) 136 at 184.’’ Flowing from the above it is wrong for the learned trial Judge to have awarded the sum of N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) as general damages after awarding special damages of N26,000,000.00 as that was tantamount to double compensation. I resolve issue six in favour of the Appellant. PER HASSAN, J.C.A.
THE DUTY OF THE TRIAL COURT TO EVALUATE EVIDENCE AND ASCRIBE PROBATIVE VALUE TO IT
Evaluation of evidence is the assessment of evidence to give value or quality to it. Evaluation should involve a reasoned belief of the evidence of one of the contending parties and disbelief of the other or a reasoned preference of one version to the other. There must be on record an indication of how the Court arrived at its conclusion, of preferring one piece of evidence to the other. See OYEKOLA v. AJIBADE (2004) 17 NWLR (Pt.902) 356 at 379. In Mrs. ELIZEBETH IRABOR ZACCALA v. MR. KINSLEY EDOSA & ANOR (2018) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1616) 528 at 545 paragraphs B-D Per M.D.
MUHAMMAD, JSC Stated ‘’It is trite that the trial Court is vested with the primary duty of evaluating evidence and ascribing probative value to same. This primacy in the Court’s responsibility arises out of the advantage it has of seeing and from observation of the witnesses, making impressions as they testified.
Thus where the trial Court fails to bring the advantage to play in evaluating the evidence of the witnesses or where being documents, as in the instant case, the issue of credibility is not at play, the appellate Court is in as good a position as the trial Court to re-appraise the evidence and make correct inferences. See Atoyebi & Anor v. The Governor of Oyo State & Ors (1994) 5 NWLR (Pt. 344) 290, Dakat v. Dashe (1997) 12 NWLR (Pt. 531) 46 and Ajibulu v. Ajayi (2013) LPELR-21860 (SC): (2014) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1392) 483.’’ PER HASSAN, J.C.A.
The settled position of the law which remains inviolate is that a Court will not award double compensation as damages against the same misdeed. See UNION BANK v. EMOLE (2001) 12 S.C.N.J 74 at 89. In ALHAJI ISIYAKU YAKUBU v. ADAMAWA STATE GOVERNMENT & ORS (2020) LPELR-51114 (CA) Pages 39-40 Per BAYERO, JCA Stated: ‘’The law frowns at award of double compensation. It is the law that where a party has been compensated fully under specific claims, it would be most inappropriate to compensate him again under general damages as that would amount to double compensation.
It is an established principle that if a plaintiff recovers in full under special damages, he cannot be entitled to general damages for that would amount to double compensation. See the case of U.T.C. (Nig.) Plc v. Philips (2012) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1295) 136 at 184.’’ Flowing from the above it is wrong for the learned trial Judge to have awarded the sum of N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) as general damages after awarding special damages of N26,000,000.00 as that was tantamount to double compensation. I resolve issue six in favour of the Appellant. PER HASSAN, J.C.A.
THE DUTY OF THE TRIAL COURT TO EVALUATE EVIDENCE AND ASCRIBE PROBATIVE VALUE TO IT
Evaluation of evidence is the assessment of evidence to give value or quality to it. Evaluation should involve a reasoned belief of the evidence of one of the contending parties and disbelief of the other or a reasoned preference of one version to the other. There must be on record an indication of how the Court arrived at its conclusion, of preferring one piece of evidence to the other. See OYEKOLA v. AJIBADE (2004) 17 NWLR (Pt.902) 356 at 379. In Mrs. ELIZEBETH IRABOR ZACCALA v. MR. KINSLEY EDOSA & ANOR (2018) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1616) 528 at 545 paragraphs B-D Per M.D.
MUHAMMAD, JSC Stated ‘’It is trite that the trial Court is vested with the primary duty of evaluating evidence and ascribing probative value to same. This primacy in the Court’s responsibility arises out of the advantage it has of seeing and from observation of the witnesses, making impressions as they testified.
Thus where the trial Court fails to bring the advantage to play in evaluating the evidence of the witnesses or where being documents, as in the instant case, the issue of credibility is not at play, the appellate Court is in as good a position as the trial Court to re-appraise the evidence and make correct inferences. See Atoyebi & Anor v. The Governor of Oyo State & Ors (1994) 5 NWLR (Pt. 344) 290, Dakat v. Dashe (1997) 12 NWLR (Pt. 531) 46 and Ajibulu v. Ajayi (2013) LPELR-21860 (SC): (2014) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1392) 483.’’ PER HASSAN, J.C.A.
General damages are such as the law will presume to be the direct, natural, or probable consequence of the act complained of. Special damages, however, 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, therefore, they must be claimed specially and proved strictly – Akinfosile V. Mobil Oil (Nig.) Ltd. (1969) NSCC (Vol. 6) 376. In this case, the two lower Courts found that there was no evidence to prove special damages claimed by the Appellant. AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.S.C.
In the award of General Damages, a wide spread power is given to the Court comparable to the exercise of discretion of the Court. It is enormous and therefore far-reaching. The measure of general damages is awarded to assuage such a loss, which flows naturally from the defendant’s act. It needs not be specifically pleaded. It suffices if it is generally averred. They are presumed to be the direct and probable consequence of that complained of. Unlike special damages, it is generally incapable of exact calculation. See Per OGUNBIYI, JSC, ELF PETROLEUM V.
UMAH & ORS (2018) LPELR-43600(SC) (PP.27-28, PARAS. C-A). PER UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, J.S.C
An appellate Court can interfere with award of damages where it is convinced either that the lower Court acted upon a wrong principle of law, or that the amount awarded was extremely high or low, such as to make the decision appealed erroneous on the damages the Plaintiff was entitled to: FLINT v. LOVELL (1935) 1 KB 360; ZIK’S PRESS LTD. v. IKOKU (1951) 5 WACA 188; IDAHOSA v. ORASONYE (1959) SCNLR 407; BALA v. BANKOLE (1986) 3 NWLR (pt. 27) 141; ONAGA v. MICHO & CO. (1961) 1 ALL NLR 236; (1961) 1 SCNLR 101; INYANG v. EBONG (2002) 2 NWLR (pt. 751) 284 at 338. – PER EJEMBI EKO J.S.C
The law is settled that the award of general damages is improper where the quantum of loss is ascertainable; just as it is also wrong to take into consideration, in awarding general damages, the loss which should have been considered in awarding special damages: KEREWI v. ODEGBESA (1967) 1 NWLR 89; WASA (NIG.) LTD v. KAILA (1978) 3 SC 21; SPDC (NIG.) LTD v. TIEBO VII (1996) 4 NWLR (pt. 445) 657 (CA) at 688. – PER EJEMBI EKO J.S.C
The law is settled that when a plaintiff has suffered some specific losses as to his income in addition to general damages on account of the trespass or as in the instant appeal, the refusal of the Appellant to pay their compensation for their ancestral land that the Appellants compulsorily acquired and occupied and the ancestral buildings/shrines, artefacts, crops and graves destroyed in the process, he can as well claim these specific losses by way of special damages. See Uba v. Samba petroleum Co. Ltd (2003) FWLR (Pt.137) 199 at 284. In the case of NBC Plc v.
Ubani (2013) LPELR-21902 SC, this Court held as follows: “The law is well settled that in the circumstance of this nature, both special and general damages can be awarded for trespass without indulging in double compensation. See the case of Odiba V. Azege (1998) 7 SCNJ 119 where this Court per Iguh JSC had the following to say at page 136.
“The law is firmly established that where in a trespass action general damages are claimed and established, it is the duty of the Court of trial to assess, quantify and award the appropriate amount it considers reasonable where additionally special damages are pleaded, claimed and strictly proved, these will also be awarded to the plaintiff. EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.
Aggravated damages are awarded whenever the Defendant’s conduct is sufficiently outrageous to merit punishment, as where for instance, it discloses malice, fraud, cruelty, insolence, or fragrant disregard of the law. See UNIVERSITY OF CALABAR V. OJI (2011) LPELR-5069(CA).”
The Court below in reviewing this point held that the trial Court was right in its evaluation of evidence before it to determine that there was justification for the award of exemplary damages against the Appellant as claimed by the Respondent. I have read pages 72-74 of the record and I cannot but agree with the conclusions of the Court below that the trial Court discharged its primary duty of evaluating the evidence and ascribing proper probative value to it. The conclusions and inference are not perverse and justifies the award of aggravated damages in the circumstances.
Aggravated damages are awarded where the tortfeasor have been particularly punitive, vindictive, malicious, high-headed and behaved in an oppressive manner towards the Plaintiff. See CHIEF FRA WILLIAMS V. DAILY TIMES LTD (1990) LPELR-3487 (SC) G.K.F. INVESTMENT V. NITEL PLC (2009)6-9 SC (PT.111) pg.163. They have been rightly awarded in this case . – PER HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C.
Now, to the quantum of the aggravated damages. The Court below in reviewing this point held that the trial Court was wrong when it decided that the Respondent had been incarcerated for 52 days whereas by the initial finding of the Court the detention at Lion Building was for 3 days and found not unconstitutional. Whereas, the detention at Ikoyi Police Station for 7 days without any charge being laid against the Respondent was found unconstitutional. Thus, the claim only entitled the Respondent to compensation for detention for 7 days and not 52 days.
The trial Court misdirected itself on this point and it is apparent on the record that this misdirection affected the quantum Of damages awarded by the trial judge. Where there is a complaint about the quantum of damages, and it is clear that the trial Court or penultimate Court misdirected itself or took into account irrelevant factors or false facts, the appellate Court is entitled to review upwards or downwards the damages. The Court in such circumstances can consider whether the damages awarded is manifestly too high or too low.
The purpose of the award is to compensate the plaintiff for the harm done to him and secondly to punish the defendant for his conduct in inflicting that harm. See First Bank v. A. G. Federation & Ors (2018) LPELR-46084 (SC); (2018) 7 NWLR pt. 1617 Pg. 121. In this case, a downward review of the damages is apt in view of the obvious misdirection on the relevant facts which caused the trial judge to award the amount so awarded. – PER HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C.
On the claim for general damages, the appellant cannot be granted the relief seeking salaries and allowances and still be entitled to general damages. General damages can be granted where the order for reinstatement is not made.
See EKEAGWU V THE NIGERIAN ARMY & ANOR (2010) LPELR-1076(SC) which held: “I am, however, not unmindful of the fact that where a plaintiff seeks the relief of reinstatement which relief is granted, the issue of measure of damages for wrongful termination/dismissal/retirement becomes irrelevant because upon reinstatement the plaintiff/party is entitled to be paid all his arrears of salary/emoluments including fringe benefits up to the point/time of reinstatement and thereafter as and when due and payable.” Per ONNOGHEN, J.S.C. With the award for salaries and allowances, there is therefore, no damage occasioned to qualify for general damages.
All the argument on general damages is unnecessary and not relevant here. PER NIMPAR, J.C.A.
Award of general damages is purely within the discretion of the Court. See ODULAJA V. HADDAD (1973) 11-12 SC 357, the lower Court expressly without mincing words said the Court used its discretion judiciously and judicially and awarded damages, general damages need not be specifically asked for by a litigant, as rightly held by the lower Court, upon general appraisal of the matter, the Court may in its discretion award what is determined to be just and appropriate.
General damages are such as the Court may give when the Judge cannot point out any measure by which they are to be assessed, except the opinion and judgment of a reasonable man. See ODOGWU V. ILOMBU (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1037) 4881, NICON HOTELS LTD V. NENE DENTAL CLINICS LTD (2007) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1051) 237 . PER TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, J.S.C.