CaseLaw
Okonkwo V. Obuseli (1998) CLR 7(g) (CA)
Brief
Facts
The respondent filed an action in the Otuocha High Court of Anambra State against the appellants for damages as a result of wanton acts of trespass committed by the appellants and other unknown person on the respondents’ caterpillar which the appellants destroyed by fire
Soon after the respondents’ statement of claim was filed and served on the appellants, the counsel for the 1st, 2nd and 4th appellants entered a conditional appearance and filed an application for an order of court striking out the respondents’ action on grounds that the action contravened section 5(1) of Torts Law 1987 and section 9(1) of the Law of Actions law, 1981 of Anambra State. In the supporting affidavit, the appellants deposed to the fact that it was wrong of the respondents to institute an action in court when a criminal action was pending in court against the appellants especially when the appellants were facing criminal charges in the Chief Magistrate’s Court but were only released on bail.
The respondents replied in their counter-affidavit that their substantive action was proper and competent.
The application was argued. The trial court, based on the judicial interpretation of the sections of the Torts Law and Law of Actions Law, overruled the appellants and dismissed the application. The court decided that once a complaint was made to the Police and prosecution of the offenders was duly commenced, the provisions of the law would have been complied with. It was therefore not necessary for the complainant to wait until the trial has been fully concluded before instituting a civil action on the same matter. The appellants were dissatisfied with the ruling and appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Issues
Whether the trial court was right in holding that it was not necessary for the...