The respondent, resident in Gboko, is a businessman engaged in trading on beer. On 19th June 1990, he was driving his Peugeot 504 Saloon Car and was returning to Gboko from a trip to Makurdi along the Yande/Makurdi road. When he was close to Bank of the North Yandev and was ascending a hill, the 1st appellant's Mercedes Benz lorry driven by the 2nd appellant was descending from the hill from the opposite direction. Suddenly, one of the wheels of the appellant's lorry pulled out from the lorry and rolled to collide with the rearside of the respondent's car. The impact forced the car to somersault several times before it fell into a ditch on the right hand side of the road. The appellant's lorry veered uncontrollably from its right lane to the leftside and crashed into the nearby premises. According to the 2nd appellant, (D.W.1), on the fateful day, he reported for duty at Makurdi at 6am and after checking his lorry and satisfying himself that the lorry was in good condition, he took off for Katsina-Ala for the sale of his company's products. On his way back to Makurdi at about 5pm, after ascending the hill near the Bank of the North Yandev, he heard a sound from the lorry. He applied his brakes gently but as he was descending the hill, he heard another sound in the nature of an explosion. It was then he discovered that the hob on the lorry on the right side had pulled out together with the tyre. Before he could stop the lorry, the hop on the other side of the lorry also pulled out with its tyre.

The next day being 20/6/90, the respondent invited the police to the scene of the incident. There, they saw the transport officer of the 1st appellant (D.W.4) who accepted liability for the accident and promised to repair the respondent's vehicle. He, the D.W.4, eventually arranged to tow the respondent's car to a mechanic workshop of the respondent's choice. At the instance of D.W.4, one Augustine Mando (P.W.2), a panel beater but described as a mechanic, prepared an estimate (Exh. A) for the cost of the repairs to be effected on the respondent's car. Despite the respondent's repeated demands by himself and through his solicitor's letter (Exh. B) for the repair of the respondent's vehicle, the appellant failed to carry out the repairs hence the action leading to this appeal. It is the respondent's case that the accident resulting in the damage to his car was due to the negligence of the appellants in failing to ensure that the wheels of their lorry were properly secured.

The appellants denied negligence on their part. They alleged that the incident was due to inevitable accident and that the respondent was contributory to the accident. It was their case that their vehicles are subjected to regular maintenance by their team of competent engineers/technicians who also conduct regular checks on any o their vehicles leaving their premises or any destination. Two days prior to the accident, the appellant's mechanic (D.W.3) had the lorry in question serviced in their workshop and ensured it was in a good working condition. A V.I.O.'S report (Exh. C) confirmed there was no mechanical defect in the lorry before the accident. The appellants also denied the assertion that their transport officer (D.W.4) admitted liability for the accident. It was alleged that the attempt by an engineer (D.W.5) of the appellants' insurance company to investigate and assess the damage to the respondent's vehicle with a view to possible settlement out of court was frustrated by the respondent and his solicitor.

At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge held the appellants liable in negligence with an award to the respondent of the sum of N45,419 as special and general damages.

Dissatisfied, the appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal.