Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Ngilari V. Mothercat Ltd (1999) CLR 12(q) (SC)

Brief

  • Concurrent findings of fact
  • Grounds of appeal (Where not covered by issues for determination)
  • Negligence (Proof of)
  • Pleadings
  • Public nuisance

Facts

The respondent was engaged in carrying out excavation work and the laying of underground water pipes across Sir Kashim Ibrahim Road, Maiduguri. It is a dual carriage way with flowers enjoying the protection of concrete wall almost 11/2 feet high along its middle.

The right hand side of the road was closed by the respondent and traffic from that direction was diverted to the other lane, the left hand side. There was a high post on the right hand side-notifying motorists from that direction of the diversion. On the left-hand side, there was no signpost at all indicating that there was a diversion ahead. Motorists from this side, which is the West-end Roundabout, had no warning whatsoever that only their own side of the dual carriage way open to traffic from both directions at the material time.

On the 23rd day of November, 1989, at about 6.30p.m the appellant was driving his Peugeot 505 Saloon Car with registration No. BO. 8669 MD from the West-end Roundabout towards the Leventis Stores Junction of Sir Kashim Ibrahim Road when it was already dark. Unknown to the appellant that motorists from his opposite direction were making use of his own lane, a Peugeot 504 No. 39 BOSG 23 DRIVEN BY ONE Festus Ayodele was involved in a head on collision with the appellant's vehicle, or so it appeared. The collision had taken place about 15 meters after the appellant had negotiated the West-end Roundabout and the car was damaged. Repairs had to be carried out on it. The appellant therefore brought the suit in the High Court culminating in this appeal, claiming the cost of the repairs and general damages for the inconvenience he suffered as a result of the accident.

The trial court dismissed the appellant's claim on the ground that he did not make out a claim either in negligence or nuisance against the respondent.

The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Which held that the appeal lacked merit and dismissed same.

Dissatisfied appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

  • 1.
    Whether the Court of Appeal was right in dismissing the nine grounds of...
    Read More