The plaintiff referred to in this appeal as the respondent formulated his claim against the defendant hereinafter referred to as the appellant in this judgment in paragraph 15 of the statement of claim thus:-

The respondent contracted with the appellant, an incorporated company registered in Nigeria carrying on courier services for delivery of mail within and outside the territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. It has branches throughout Nigeria with a branch office at Plot 156/157 Trans Amadi Industrial Layout, Port Harcourt.

On the 28th day of June, 1986 respondent contracted with the appellant to deliver two parcels containing application forms for admissions to Nasarawa Polytechnic Plateau State and Federal Polytechnic Idah, Benue State respectively. Respondent clearly addressed the envelope which contained the said forms in his own handwriting and later handed over to the counter clerk, the servant of the appellant.

The appellants servant testified that upon receipt of the two parcels she looked at their record and discovered that they were not serving the two towns. Respondent then represented to her that Nasarawa was an area in Jos as Trans Amadi is in Port Harcourt. She rejected acceptance of the two parcels but due to the plea of respondent who advised her to write on the envelope which contained the application to Nasarawa Polytechnic coupled with the desire to satisfy her customer she adhered to the suggestion and wrote the word Jos on the said envelope admitted as Exhibit A during the trial in the high court.

With regard to the envelope to Idah still wanting to satisfy her customer though Idah was not being serviced by her employer she sent it to the office of the respondent in Makurdi with directive to dispatch it to Idah through the post office in Makurdi.

She charged N13.00 per parcel for which she issued receipts admitted Exhibit B for Idah and Exhibit B1 for the parcel for Nassarawa. Based upon the representation of respondent Exhibit A was sent immediately on 28/86 to Jos for delivery. Few days after Exhibit A was returned to Port Harcourt office of the appellant with an endorsement that:

"This area is not in the unforward list. We do not service the town." On 7th July, 1987 Exhibit A was delivered to the respondent for non delivery for the reason stated above. The official receipt for the application form was admitted as Exhibit C.

Respondent was displeased with the non delivery so he instructed his solicitor to complain to the appellant by letter dated 14th July, 1986 admitted as Exhibit D. On same day appellant wrote letter admitted as Exhibit E to the respondent. By letter dated 3/10/86 admitted as Exhibit F appellants solicitor replied Exhibit D.

Respondent tendered all the above mentioned documents during his testimony for himself as only witness for the plaintiff/respondent he was cross examined by learned counsel for appellant.

Appellants counter clerk who received the parcels testified as the only witness for the appellant. Reference had already been made above to part of her testimony. After a considered ruling appellants standard conditions of carriage was admitted as Exhibit G.

She was cross-examined by learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent. As only witness of the appellant she concluded through her testimony the case of appellant.

Learned counsel to the parties addressed the court.

In a considered judgment the learned trial Judge entered judgment for the plaintiff/respondent wherein he awarded the sum of N10,000.00 as special and general damages against the appellant.