CASE TITLE: Q Oil & Gas Services Ltd V. Ge Int’l Operations (Nig) Ltd. & Anor (2025) LPELR-81785(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 4TH AUGUST, 2025
PRACTICE AREA: CIVIL PROCEDURE
LEAD JUDGMENT: MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, J.C.A.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This cross-appeal borders on the award of exemplary/special damages.
FACTS:
This is a cross-appeal against the decision of Honourable Justice A. Enebeli, Judge of the High Court of Rivers State, Port Harcourt Judicial Division, delivered on the 6th day of October, 2020, in Suit No. PHC/1501/2021, wherein judgment was entered in favour of the Cross-Appellant and against the 1st and 2nd Cross-Respondents.
Before the trial Court, the Cross-Appellant, as Claimant, initiated the suit against the 1st and 2nd Cross-Respondents who were 1st and 2nd Defendants respectively, via a writ of summons claiming, among other reliefs, a declaration that the contract of service/employment and/or recruitment between the Claimant and KADIRVELU VARADHARAJA PERUMAL for the benefit of the 1st Defendant is valid and binding.
A summary of the case of the Cross-Appellant at the trial Court is that the Cross-Appellant, as an independent contractor in the oil and gas industry, provides expatriate employees for the 1st Cross-Respondent. The crux of the Cross-Appellant’s case squarely rests on the allegation that the 1st and 2nd Cross-Respondents had unlawfully interfered with the contract entered into by the Cross-Appellant and its employees, namely, Perumal and Muralid, leading to a fundamental breach of contract. The Cross-Appellant averred inter alia before the lower Court that its employees were unlawfully induced by the 1st and 2nd Cross-Respondents to breach their contract with the Cross-Appellant, just to work for the 1st Cross-Respondent but through the 2nd Cross-Respondent (competitor of the Cross-Appellant).
The matter was set down for trial, and upon conclusion of the trial, parties filed and exchanged their final written addresses, and the trial Court on the 6th day of October, 2020, delivered its judgment in favour of the Cross-Appellant.
Dissatisfied with some aspects of the decision of the trial Court, the cross-appellant filed a notice of cross-appeal.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
The Court determined the cross-appeal on the issues nominated by the Cross-Appellant, to wit:
1. Whether the learned trial judge right to have dismissed the claim for the sum of $2,917,960, being special damages claimed by the cross-appellant against the 1st Cross-Respondent?
2. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in his award of $5,000,000 instead of the $9,000,000 damages claimed by the cross-appellant against the cross-respondents for the cross-respondents’ unlawful interference with the contracts between the cross-appellant and Mr Perumal and G. Muralidharan?
DECISION/HELD:
The Court held that the cross-appeal was lacking in merit, and the same was dismissed. Cost was assessed in the sum of N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) in favour of each of the Cross- Respondents and against the Cross-Appellant.
RATIOS:
- DAMAGES- SPECIAL DAMAGES: Nature of special damages; whether same must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved
- DAMAGES- EXEMPLARY DAMAGES: Nature of exemplary damages and when same would be awarded
- DAMAGES- EXEMPLARY DAMAGES: Cases in which exemplary damages are awarded
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
