CaseLaw
Umar V. Ahungwa (1997) CLR 2 (C) (CA)
Brief
Facts
A truck belonging to the 2nd appellant (but driven by 1st appellant) collided with the respondent car, a Peugeot 505 station wagon which caught fire and was burnt beyond repairs. The respondent sued the appellants in the High Court claiming damages for negligence.
There were two versions of evidence as to how the accident happened. There was evidence of a sketch (Exhibit "1") of the scene of accident drawn by a policeman called to the scene and which was signed by the two drivers of the respective vehicles. The sketch showed that the two vehicles were traveling on the road in opposite directions. The point of impact corresponded with the story of the accident as told by the respondent. The Lorry completely left its side of the road and went on to collide with the respondent's car which the respondent had driven to the verge of his side of the road to avoid collision with the on-coming lorry from the opposite side.
The respondent had pleaded that the lorry driven by the 1st appellant belonged to the 2nd appellant and that at the time of the collision the 1st appellant was in the course of his employment under the 2nd appellant. The 2nd appellant, on the other hand, pleaded he did not know the 1st appellant and that the 1st appellant was not his driver. The 1st appellant pleaded along the same line too. At the trial, all the parties led evidence in support of their pleadings. While the respondent contended that it was the 1st appellant's negligence that caused the collision, the appellants maintained that it was the respondent's driver who came to collide with the appellants' vehicle while trying to avoid potholes.
In his judgment, the learned trial Judge found for the respondent. Being dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned trial Judge, the appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal.