On the 23rd of January, 1989, this Court heard this appeal and dismissed it, but reserved reasons for the judgment till today. I now give my reasons. By a writ of summons dated the 25th day of February, 1974, the plaintiff claimed against the defendant as follows:

The plaintiff also claims from the defendant the sum of N20.00 per day for loss of income as a result of the wrongful seizure from the aforesaid date of seizure until possession is delivered.

The plaintiff further claims the sum of N1,000.00 as general damages for wrongful seizure and detention of the said vehicle."

Pleadings were filed and exchanged, after which the matter was set down for hearing.

The facts are brief. Between March and August, 1971 the plaintiff, a transporter, hire-purchased from the defendant three motor vehicles under the agreements, Exhs. E, F and G. When the plaintiff ran into difficulties without honouring his hire purchase obligations, the parties entered into an agreement, Exh. B dated January 4, 1972, in place of the original hire purchase agreement. Under Exh. B the price of the vehicles was to be paid by agreed monthly instalments of N400.00 per month, but upon default, the whole amount would become due and recoverable by legal action. One of the vehicles was involved in an accident and the engine of another vehicle knocked, leaving the plaintiff with only motor vehicle No.WC4102, the subject of this suit. As the plaintiff could not pay as agreed under Exh. B, the defendant, on the 21st of May, 1972, seized the vehicle No.WC4102.

At the trial, the main issue as to the liability of the defendant was whether Exh. B was an agreement for sale under the Sale of Goods Law. The learned trial Judge, Agbaje Williams, J. (as he then was) held:

Later he continued'

"The existence of Exhibit B in the form it appears, seems to me to suggest that the parties intended to extinguish or oust the original contract of Hire Purchase in its entirety, and substitute a new agreement of sale. Grounds 1 and 5 therefore succeed. (Refer to Morris v. Baron (1918) A.C. 1 at p. 18 & 19)."

In a nutshell, they held that the contract of sale, Exh. B, extinguished the earlier hire purchase agreements and so the defendant was wrong to have seized the vehicle. They therefore, allowed the appeal, with costs. On the question of damages, they held:

"On the question of damages dealt with under Ground 4 of the Grounds of Appeal, by the wrongful seizure and detention of the vehicle, the Defendant had acted in breach of the terms of Exhibit B, and as the evidence as to loss suffered by the Appellant has not been rebutted or contradicted he is entitled to judgment for the return of the vehicle or its value, N2,400.00, and for the loss of use of the vehicle up to the date of judgment of the lower court in the sum of N20.00 per day. The Appellant is not entitled to any general damages since to award, this will amount to double compensation in view of the damages awarded already (Shell-BP Petroleum Development Coy. vs. Jammal Engineering (Nigeria) Ltd. (1974) 4 S.C. 33)."

The defendant, hereinafter called the appellant, has appealed to this Court against part of the judgement.