CaseLaw
Olaifa v. Aina (1993) CLR 5(D) (CA)
Brief
Facts
The plaintiff who is a licensed Surveyor and valuer became involved with the defendant when they had a motor accident in Akure town. The plaintiff hit the defendant from behind and admitted liability for the damage done to defendant's car. Plaintiff took defendant's car to a motor mechanic, John durojaiye Odudu, who later gave evidence as P.W.3, A written agreement was entered into by the plaintiff in confirmation of his liability for the repairs of the defendant's car. The said agreement was admitted in evidence as Exhibit "C" The accident occurred on 28th November, 1984 John Durojaiye Odudu, P.W.3 gave a rough estimate of the cost of repairs as N1,387 and demanded a down payment of N500.00 plaintiff could find N450.00 and defendant to accelerate the repairs added N50.00
According to the defendant, plaintiff went to the Ibadan Headquarters of defendants Insurance Company collected claims forms which the defendant was persuaded to fill and return through the plaintiff. Three months after the forms were handed over to the plaintiff he came to the defendant with a UBA cheque issued in favour of Nigeria Agric & Co-op Bank, employers of the defendant. The value of the cheque was N1,879.00 Defendant said that plaintiff was dissatisfied that the cheque was not issued in his name or that of the mechanic. Plaintiff therefore implored the defendant to co-operate so that the beneficiary of the cheque could be changed to his (plaintiff's) name or that of the mechanic Plaintiff drafted a letter which was signed by the defendant requesting the Lion of Africa to change the name on the cheque, plaintiff went away with the cheque and the covering letter.
According to the defendant, he was again involved in another accident while driving the same car which he had already collected from the mechanic, the latter accident occurred on 3rd June, 1985 at Ilorin. He went to his Lion of Africa Insurance and thee learnt that he had just been sent a cheque through the plaintiff on the basis of the form filled by him (the defendant) Plaintiff had earlier told the defendant of the involvement of his own insurance the Liberty Assurance which was to reim burse the defendant's insurance in the sum to be paid for the repairs.
When the defendant got to Ibadan on account of the second accident his Insurance Company told him that there was no agreement whatsoever between that company and the Liberty Assurance of the plaintiff. He sent a letter to plaintiff's Insurers, the Liberty Assurance, but the company denied any arrangement to reimburse the Lion of Africa Plaintiff's Insurers said that the plaintiff has a third party policy which had expired. A letter of the Lion Insurance Company to the defendant, Exhibit F, copied to the plaintiff indicated that a cheque had been sent through the plaintiff to the defendant. When the defendant asked for the cheque, the plaintiff would not release it. The defendant lodged a complaint to the police and that was the cause of the action. The plaintiffs were dismissed by a letter of 13th March, 1997 issued during the pendency of the trial of the 1st plaintiff in the Magistrate Court, Ibadan. The plaintiffs filed the action sometime in September, 1999. At the trial the defendant did not testify but rested its case on that of the plaintiffs.
The learned trial judge after taking the evidence of the parties made the following findings.
Plaintiff kept the said cheque for so many days after they had agreed with the defendant to re submit to the defendant's insurance for a change of name. Plaintiff refused to re submit to the Insurance and would not despite demand, return the cheque to the defendant.
In spite of what the police Officer may conclude, the draft in question was debited to the account of the defendant, He had an absolute right that could not be shared with anybody even with the plaintiff. Failure of the plaintiff to make the cheque available to the defendant whether valid or cancelled makes the plaintiff liable to trespass on the rights of the defendant. In my view defendant is absolutely justified in complaining to police of plaintiff's action. Plaintiff has neither the law nor equity on his side in keeping a property, however low in value, against the interest of the real owner.
The appellant felt dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court and he appealed to the court of Appeal.