n Compulaw - 1st Indigenous Digital Law Library
Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

OrdiaV. Piedmont (Nig) Ltd (1995) CLR 3 (C) (SC)

Brief

  • Distinction between Detinue and conversion,
  • Damages recoverable for detention. What plaintiff must prove,
  • Ingredients of Detinue, Remedies open to plaintiff,
  • Admissibility of documentary evidence and evidence of value of goods not contradicted.

Facts

The appellant bought two galvanised steel barges from the liquidator of a company that constructed the bridge on Ethiope River. That was in 1978 and the two barges were moored near the new bridge. By the time the plaintiff sought to take delivery of the barges he discovered they had been taken away by the defendant to Ologbo where the defendant put them to use. The plaintiff then instituted an action to recover the barges at Sapele in the High Court of the former Mid-Western State but his action was dismissed. He then appealed to the Supreme Court where by consent judgment it was ordered as follows:

  • 1
    The plaintiff/appellant shall pay to the defendant/respondent the sum of N900.00 being the present price agreed to by the parties in respect of both barges constituting the subject matter of appeal.
  • 2
    After payment of the said amount of N900.00 by the plaintiff/appellant to the 2nd defendant/respondent, the 2nd defendant/respondent shall permit the plaintiff/appellant to take possession of the said barges and remove same for his own use and benefit.
  • 3
    The plaintiff/appellant shall pay to the 2nd defendant/respondent the cost of this appeal assessed at N500.00".

The plaintiff/appellant promptly complied with the above judgment by paying the sum of N1,400.00 into the defendant/respondent's account (i.e. N900.00 and cost of N500.00) which the respondent refused to accept by sending a cheque for the same sum back to him on 9th April, 1976. The appellant then paid this same sum into the Registry of the High Court in respondent's favour but despite notice to this payment, the respondent still refused to collect the sum. The appellant then demanded the return of the barges as ordered by the Supreme Court but this demand was not heeded.

This led to the suit that found its way from the High court through the court of Appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issues

  • 1
    Was the court of Appeal right to affirm the judgment of the lower court

Read More