Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

W.A.C.C V. Caroline Poultry Farms Ltd (2000) CLR 2(z) (CA)

Brief

  • Special damages
  • Pleadings
  • Res ipsa loquitur

Facts

The Respondent sued the appellant before the High Court, Port Harcourt claiming N300,000.00 special and general damages for negligence. Pleadings were exchanged and amended here and there. The respondent owned a poultry farm which developed a bad odour. It employed the services of the appellant to remove the odour.

On the 2nd of September, 1980 the appellant carried out these services by disinfecting the farm. In the statement of claim it was alleged that on the 5th of September, the respondent observed that birds in the farm were dying in large numbers. It made contact with the appellant which did nothing. Several letters were exchanged between the parties and eventually the respondent sued for negligence.

The respondent called three witnesses in proof of its claim. It was not disputed by both sides that there was an agreement between them for the appellant to control the bad odour in the poultry farm. The respondent gave evidence through its witness that as a result of the disinfectant used by the appellant to remove the odour the birds in the cages inhaled substances that led to their death in large numbers. It relied particularly on the evidence of PW2, Dr. Iyo a Veterinary Doctor with the Ministry of Agriculture, Port Harcourt. Dr. Iyo tendered a post-mortem report conducted on the dead birds as Exhibit J. In his opinion chemicals which the appellant company officials sprayed in the poultry farm were responsible for the death of the birds. He sent samples of the dead birds to Vom Veterinary Research institute which sent a report but the witness did not tender it. He merely said that the result of the test was in their office file. The result was however tendered by the appellant through DW1, Dr. Titus Osiyemi of the Veterinary Research institute, Vom as Exhibit K. This exhibit is in total conflict to Exhibit J: that probably explains why the respondent refused to tender it as it would certainly have destroyed its case. The appellant testified through DW2. Isaac Emenogu that the respondent disinfected the poultry farm by mixing dettol and water and sprayed the litters in order to reduce the stench.

He said that he had been doing this work for many years and he personally mixed the materials used and there was no negligence on their part.

The learned trial Judge at the conclusion of the case and addresses by the counsel on either side, gave judgement in favour of the respondent and awarded N72,500.00 as special damages and N7,500.00 as general damages with costs of N400.00.

The appellant was dissatisfied and appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Issues

  • 1
    Whether the doctrine of "res ipsa loquitur" was applicable in this case...
  • Read More