Meaning And Nature of An Action in Detinue

CASE TITLE: EL-ASBAB HOTEL & INVESTMENT IND (NIG) LTD & ANOR v. ECO BANK (2024) LPELR-62448(SC)

JUDGMENT DATE: 21ST JUNE, 2024

PRACTICE AREA: TORT

LEAD JUDGMENT: STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on award of damages for detinue.

FACTS:

By a Writ of Summons and statement of claim filed on May 28, 2013, the appellants as claimants initiated this matter against the Respondent as Defendant, respectively in the trial Court seeking the following reliefs:

1. AN ORDER of the Honourable Court compelling the Defendant to release the certificate of occupancy number BI/G/2962 of the Claimants which was deposited with it for the purpose of processing the performance bond.

2. AN ORDER of the Honourable Court commanding the Defendant to pay the sum of N100,000,000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira) only as exemplary damages for unlawful detention of the certificate of occupancy number – BI/G/2962 property of the claimants from 2008 till date.

3. AN ORDER of the Honourable Court to the Defendant to pay the sum of N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira only) as the cost of this action.

On the 6th day of December, 2007, the 2nd claimant applied to the Respondent for a bank guarantee in the form of a Bond in favour of SOCACIC (W/A) LTD. Consequently, the Respondent demanded that the Appellants deposit their Certificate of Occupancy with them as security for the Bond. The 2nd appellant therefore, deposited the Original Certificate of Occupancy No B1/G/2962 with the Respondent. The certificate bears the name of the 1st Appellant. It was asserted that due to the change of government policy, the object for which the performance Bond (Exhibit A3) was procured could not materialize. Consequently, after the expiration of the tenure of the Bond, the 2nd Appellant made several written demands to the Respondent for the return of the Certificate of Occupancy but the Respondent refused. The trial Court in its judgment delivered on the 20th day of April 2016, found that the Respondent had no legal right for the continued detention of the Certificate of Occupancy of the appellants since 2008. The Court found the conduct of the Respondent outrageous, malicious, cruel, sadistic, and an “insolence.” The Court then ordered the Respondent to pay N30,000,000.00 (Thirty Million naira) to the Appellants. The trial Court also ordered the Respondent to pay N100,000.00 daily if she failed to release the said certificate within 7 days of the judgment.

Aggrieved by that decision the Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Sokoto Division of the Court of Appeal resolved the main issue, which was issue 2, against the appellants and set aside the damages of Thirty Million Naira only (N30.000.000.00) awarded in favour of the appellants and reduced it to One Hundred Thousand Naira only (N100.000.00). The Appellants were aggrieved by this decision hence they further appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:

The appeal was determined on the following issues viz:

1) “Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were not in error when they held that the Court having compelled the return of the certificate of occupancy, can only award reasonable damages for the retention of the chattel and found the N30,000,000.00 (Thirty Million Naira) only awarded by trial Court as excessive.

2) “Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were not in error when they reduced the N30,000,000.00 (Thirty Million Naira) only damages in favour of the Appellant to N100,000.00 (Ono Hundred Thousand Naira) only for the retention of the Appellants Certificate of Occupancy”.”

DECISION/HELD:

On the whole, the appeal was allowed.

RATIOS:

• APPEAL- INTERFERENCE WITH AWARD OF DAMAGES: Whether an appellate court will interfere with an award of damages merely because it would have awarded a higher or lesser amount
• APPEAL- INTERFERENCE WITH AWARD OF DAMAGES: Whether award of damages is a matter within the discretion of the trial Court; circumstances in which an appellate Court will interfere with same
• COURT- RAISING ISSUE(S) SUO MOTU: Whether a Court can raise an issue suo motu and determine it without hearing parties
• DAMAGES- AWARD OF DAMAGES: Whether the award of damages is at the discretion of the Court; How the discretion should be exercised
• TORT- TORT AND CONTRACT: Distinction between tort and contract
• TORT- DETINUE: Meaning and nature of an action in detinue
• TORT- DETINUE: Remedies available to a plaintiff in an action for detinue

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol