The case of the plaintiffs/respondents as contained in paragraphs 21, 22 and 23 of the statement of claim is that prior to the 20th of November 1987 there were sporadic sparks on the high tension electric wire which ran through the front of the plaintiffs’ restaurant.

And although those intermittent sparks which indicated fault on the high tension wire were reported to the defendant’s office, no steps were taken. The case of the defendant/appellant, on the other hand was that no report was ever made of any fault or spark on the high tension wire. This is contained in paragraph 4 of the statement of defence. Eventually, the wire snapped and caused injuries to the respondent and caused the death of the deceased, Miss Adenike Role was the daughter of the 1st respondent. It was the contention of the respondent that at all relevant times that the affected electric wire was under the sole management and control of the appellant. They therefore relied on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

At the trial while the PWI said in his evidence –in –chief that she reported about the sparks or fault to officials of the defendant three times, under cross-examination she said reported once. Despite this contradiction on this issue of whether or not a report of the sparks or fault was made, the learned trial judge believed her evidence and found that the report was made.

The trial court entered judgment in favour of the respondents.

Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.