Your Ride and Safety, Their Responsibility?

CASE TITLE: MISS PHILIP JULIET v. PEACE MASS TRANSIT LIMITED (2025)
LPELR-80333(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 22nd Jan, 2025
JUSTICES: ADEBUKUNOLA ADEOTI IBIRONKE BANJOKO, J.C.A.
ABBA BELLO MOHAMMED, J.C.A.
ISHAQ MOHAMMED SANI, J.C.A.
DIVISION: ABUJA

PRACTICE AREA: TORT

FACTS:

This appeal borders on Tort of Negligence.

This is an appeal against the judgment delivered by Honorable Justice Folasade Ojo of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory.

The case of the appellant was that she bought a ticket for her journey, was admitted into the respondent’s bus, and the journey progressed until the occurrence of an accident. She claimed that the respondent’s driver drove recklessly, ignored all warnings by passengers, refused to observe traffic rules, and eventually had an accident. Appellant set out the particulars of her injury to be that she suffered a second-degree cervical injury resulting in paralysis from her neck to the soles of her feet; serious damage to her upper and lower limbs; and tetraplegia complicated with decubitus ulcer stage IV, which has rendered her bedridden and completely dependent on third parties to feed, drink, excrete, or make any form of motion whatsoever.

On the other hand, the Respondent stated that the Appellant did not board any vehicle belonging to it and that their inquiry at the police showed that the accidented vehicle did not belong to it.

The trial Court held that the Appellant failed to prove a breach of the duty of care in a case of negligence and dismissed the claims for special and general damages.

Dissatisfied with the outcome of the judgment, Appellant appealed.

ISSUES: FOR DETERMINATION

The issues for determination were:

1) Whether the Respondent did not admit all material allegations of the cause and effect of the accident and thereby require minimum proof by the Appellant?

2) Whether the trial Court was not wrong in holding that the Appellant failed to prove her negative assertions.

3) Whether the Appellant did not prove that the accident was caused by the negligence of the Respondent.

4) Whether upon the proper invocation of the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor by the Appellant the Respondent discharged the burden placed on it to disprove its negligence.

COUNSEL SUBMISSIONS:

According to the Appellant’s Counsel, the suit is rooted in negligence, and the Respondent did not join issues on all the material allegations of facts upon which the claim was made. The Appellant explained how she bought the ticket for her journey, how she was admitted into the Defendant’s bus, and how the journey progressed until the occurrence of the accident. She had testified as to how the driver drove recklessly, ignored all warnings by the passengers, refused to observe simple road signs, etc., which culminated in a self-accident. In addition to her explanation, she had relied on the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor.

​He stated that the Defendant did not present his own side of the story on the cause and effect of the accident but had only completely denied ownership of the vehicle that was involved in the accident, stating that the vehicle belonged to Udenu Mass Transit Bus. Therefore, the Defendant had not joined issues on the negligent conduct of the driver of the vehicle.

The Respondent’s Counsel argued that, contrary to the Appellant’s submission, they had denied the allegation of negligence in Paragraph 8 of their Amended Statement of Defence (Page 96 of the Record). By doing so, the onus was shifted back to the Plaintiff to prove negligence. Counsel cited the case of SAMSON UGOCHUKWU VS UNIPETROL (NIG.) PLC (2002) 20 WRN 1, PER UTHMAN MOHAMMED JSC, in stating that such denial was sufficient in law, and it was never an admission. Learned Counsel further submitted that the burden of establishing negligence is not on both parties but rests squarely on the Plaintiff. Counsel also stated that, before the defence can be called upon to state her own side of the story, the Plaintiff has to convince the Court on three essential things, namely, that the Defendant owes him a duty of care, that there is a breach of that duty, and that an injury to the Plaintiff has occurred between which a causal connection must be established. Counsel cited the cases of OTARU AND SON VS IDRIS (1999) SCNJ 156 at 184 PER O. Achike JSC and HAMZA VS KURE (2010) 3 SCNJ 554 AT 569 – 570 PER LT. MOHAMMED JSC.

DECISION/HELD:

In the final analysis, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and imposed the sum of N100,000,000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira Only) as general damages and the sum of N1,846,345.00 (One million, Eight Hundred and Forty-Six Thousand, Three Hundred and Forty-Five Naira Only) as special damages.

RATIO:

TORT- DUTY OF CARE: Duty of care of a transport company to its passengers: Without any iota of doubt, by the Contract of Passenger Carriage that the Appellant entered into with the Respondent, the Appellant upon paying for and boarding the bus, ought to be safely conveyed to her destination. This is because there is a duty of care on the part of an employer to ensure that its employee driving unsuspecting passengers should exercise duty of care and, in fact, has a huge responsibility to ensure that the employee under his control and supervision is competent. At this point, whether he drove fast or not is irrelevant to the fact of speed, as speed is relative. The fact of fault, even though slight, is sufficient. SALAKO VS STATE (SUPRA).” Per ADEBUKUNOLA ADEOTI IBIRONKE BANJOKO, J.C.A.

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