The present appeal is from the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Lagos Division) in appeal No. CA/L/74/2000: Prof. Ajibayo Akinkugbe v. Ewulum Holdings (Nig.) Ltd & Anor delivered on the 30th of May 2002. The Respondents, who were the Plaintiffs before the trial Court (the High Court of Lagos State in the Ikeja Judicial Division) had instituted an action against the Appellant herein who was then the Defendant before that Court claiming as follows:-
-
1
A declaration that the ejecting of the Plaintiffs from the premises No.53, Talabi Street, Adeniyi Jones Avenue, Ikeja, Lagos State on the 4th day of February 1994 is unlawful, the same having been carried out vi et armis and without lawful authority.
-
2
An order directing the Defendant to enter into an undertaking as to unlimited damages indemnifying the Plaintiffs for all or any expense or loss that they may incur directly or incidental to the loss of the Airline Tickets.
-
3
N5,000,000.00 (five million naira) damages for unlawful execution and damages for loss of proper feeling of dignity and pride.
-
4
N100,000.00 (one hundred thousand naira) damages for trespass.
-
5
Special damages as follows:-
-
a
N650,000.00
-
b
US Dollars-113,000.00
In paragraph 31 of his amended statement of defence and counter-claim, the Defendant/Appellant counter- claimed against the Plaintiffs/Respondents as follows:-
-
"The Defendant repeats all the allegations in the second amended statement of defence and counter-claim against the Plaintiffs for N2,114,715.00 (two million one hundred and fourteen thousand seven hundred and fifteen naira only) as general and special damages for breach of covenant to repair at the end of the lease:
Particulars
-
Cost of repairs - N1,114,715.00
-
An order General Damages - N 1,000,000.00."
Pleadings filed and exchanged between the parties at the trial Court with leave of Court, are (a) the amended statement of claim dated 21st February 1995, (b) amended statement of defence and counter-claim dated 10th July, 1995 and (c) the amended reply dated 20th February, 1997. Both parties led evidence in proof of the averments in their respective pleadings. Sequel to taking the final addresses of the Counsel, the learned trial Judge, in a reserved judgment delivered on the 4th of March 1998, granted reliefs numbers (1), (2) (3) wherein three million naira was awarded to the Plaintiffs against the Defendant/Appellant and (5) whereupon being satisfied with the evidence led by the Plaintiffs/Respondents, he awarded all the various sums of money claimed as special damages. The claim forN100,000.00 as damages for trespass was however refused. Also, the counter-claim of the Defendant/Appellant was refused.
Being dissatisfied with the said judgment of the trial Court, the Defendant, now the Appellant before this Court, lodged an appeal against the judgment in respect of the substantive claim and the counter-claim of the Court below, 'the respective Counsel of the parties proffered arguments in support of the various issues raised by them in their respective briefs of argument. In a considered judgment delivered on the 30th of May 2002, the Court below, in dismissing the appeal in toto, had reasoned:-
-
"The evidence of D.W1 had ominous implications for the case of the Defendant. The evidence revealed that the Defendant knows that as at 22/12/93, the Plaintiffs were still in the premises. The Defendant would also know that Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to vacate was still in Court and fixed for hearing on 24/1/94. The question is, what happened between 22/12/93 and 29/12/93 to prompt the Defendant to believe that the Plaintiffs had vacated only for the same Plaintiffs to apply after 4/1/94 to be reinstated to the premises?....................................................................
-
Appellant's Counsel was not contending that the sum of N3m awarded as general damages was excessive. Rather, the argument was that the trial Judge did not assess the quantum of damages or state the nature of the damages awarded....................................... The litigation in Court between the parties on the Defendant's claim for possession against the Plaintiffs was quite prolonged and might have been frustrating for the Defendant. The Plaintiff had not been keeping with undertakings given to the Defendant to give up possession. It is, I believe this situation which drove the Defendant into a state of desperation which led him to what he did. However, the law does not excuse such conduct even if the Plaintiffs did not behave well. They were in occupation and could not be evicted except in accordance with the due process of law.
-
The truth is that there was before the Court evidence showing the unjustifiable circumstances in which the Appellant had forcibly ejected the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs had in their amended statement of claim asked for aggravated damages.............. It seems sufficient to note that aggravated damages are at large as it is in general damages. I might myself think that perhaps N3 million as aggravated damages was excessive but that was not the issue raised before us by the Appellant and I say no more on the matter............... It is enough to say that the Appellant has not made a case for this Court to intervene by reducing the sum of N3 million awarded as damages. Under the 2nd issue ................... there is in my view no merit in the argument. The Plaintiffs pleaded the items they listed including foreign currencies. The evidence on the point was not challenged. The lower Court accepted such unchallenged evidence as he is entitled to do........... I see no reason to disturb the award as special damages....................................
-
I agree that the applicable standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt. I am satisfied however that the evidence available in support of Plaintiffs case attained the standard required."
Being dissatisfied with the said judgment, the Appellant appealed to this Court against the judgment of the Court below as it relates to the substantive claim and the counter-claim.
