In the High Court of Justice of Oyo State of Nigeria, in the Ibadan Judicial Division, holden at Ibadan and in suit No. 1/317/83 the plaintiff claimed against the defendant as per her writ of summons thus:-
-
1
An order directing the defendant to release to the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s vehicle Peugeot 504 station wagon Registered No. OY 4289 AE unlawfully seized and detained by the defendant on the 12th day of April, 1982 or in the alternative the market value of the said vehicle at the date of seizure which is N8,500.00.
-
2
The sum of N130.00 per day until delivery of the vehicle.
-
3
The plaintiff also claim N5,000.00 as general damages for the unlawful detention.
-
4
Interest at the rate of 10% per annum for date of judgment on the total amount awarded.
Pleadings were ordered, filed and duly exchanged. Pleadings were settled at statement of claim, amended statement of defence and reply to amended statement of defence. The plaintiff’s claim that went to trial is as set out above; her claim in the statement of claim having recited the claim as per her writ of summons verbatim and literatim. After the testimony of witnesses, parties and addresses by counsel on behalf of both parties the learned trial judge after review and evaluation of evidence concluded his judgment as follows:-
-
“As there is nothing before the court to show that the defendant could repossess the goods in this case before he repossessed it, its repossession was unlawful by virtue of section 43 (1) of the Law: He in law has to return it or pay its value to the plaintiff having detained it unlawfully. The defendant in my judgment is to return the vehicle in his possession to the plaintiff who had paid a substantial part of his price and was in possession before it was seized from her by the defendant.
-
The plaintiff has said she used to use the vehicle to carry some passengers but on the evidence before the court, the vehicle was defective and not working when it was repossessed. The evidence in support of fares that used to be collected is tenuous. I cannot in the circumstance award her anything for the loss of use of the vehicle. There must be evidence of reasonable use for that head of claim to succeed; but she ………………………. I do not think this is a case where interest should be awarded on the judgment debt. I award her nothing as interest on the 4th head of claim. The 1st and 3rd heads of claim therefore succeed. There will be judgment in her favour accordingly. The 2nd and the 4th heads of her claim are dismissed accordingly.”
Both parties were dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned trial judge and have respectively appealed and cross-appealed to this Court.
