CHUDI VERDICAL CO. LTD V. IFESINACHI INDUSTRIES NIGERIA LTD & ANOR (2018)

Background

This appeal concerned the destruction of the appellant’s petrol filling station after a luxury bus associated with the respondents left the highway, entered the station and caught fire. Chudi Verdical Co. Ltd commenced proceedings in the High Court of Anambra State claiming N13,532,464.00 as special and general damages, together with the costs of the action. The appellant alleged that the second respondent, Felix Edeoga, was driving the first respondent’s bus in the course of his employment and that the accident resulted from negligence. It pleaded several particulars of negligence, including allowing the bus to leave a straight and unobstructed highway, driving at night despite the risks associated with poor visibility and armed robbery, failing to control or stop the vehicle, and carrying inflammable material in the luggage compartment. In the alternative, the appellant pleaded the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

The respondents denied negligence. Their case was that armed robbers attacked and overpowered the driver, seized control of the bus, robbed the passengers and drove the vehicle into the appellant’s station, where they poured petrol on the tyres and set it ablaze. The trial court accepted the appellant’s reliance on res ipsa loquitur, held that the respondents had failed to rebut the resulting presumption of negligence and entered judgment for the appellant. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision, holding that reliance on the doctrine was misconceived because the evidence disclosed how the incident occurred. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was correct that the appellant’s plea and the trial court’s application of res ipsa loquitur were misconceived.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to set aside the award of special damages.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court, by a majority, dismissed the appeal. Muhammad JSC, delivering the lead judgment, explained that res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence affecting the burden or onus of proof; it is not an independent tort and does not impose strict liability. The doctrine may be invoked where an occurrence is of a kind that ordinarily would not happen without negligence, the thing causing the damage was under the management or control of the defendant or the defendant’s servants, and there is no satisfactory explanation of how the occurrence happened.

The doctrine raises only a rebuttable inference or prima facie case. It does not assist a claimant who knows the material facts concerning the cause of the injury, nor does it continue to operate once the defendant provides an explanation capable of resolving the uncertainty. Reliance on the doctrine therefore signifies that the claimant lacks direct affirmative evidence of the precise negligent act and relies on the surrounding circumstances to establish negligence.

The Court held that the evidence of PW1, the investigating police officer, and DW1, the bus driver, showed how the fire arose. Both sides’ evidence concerned an armed robbery, the driver’s loss of control of the bus and the vehicle’s movement into the filling station. Once evidence existed on the cause of the occurrence, the event could no longer be treated as unexplained. The appellant therefore could not invoke res ipsa loquitur merely because it disputed the respondents’ explanation or considered the defence evidence unreliable.

Court Findings

The Court also noted that no party had appealed the trial court’s finding that the appellant had abandoned the specific particulars of negligence pleaded in paragraph 5 of the statement of claim. A point of law or fact not appealed against is deemed conceded and remains binding between the parties. The Supreme Court consequently treated the central question as whether the appellant could succeed solely through res ipsa loquitur.

The majority found that the Court of Appeal correctly concluded that the doctrine was inappropriate in the circumstances. The respondents had offered an account of the accident, and the available evidence did not establish that the respondents’ negligence, rather than the independent intervention of armed robbers, caused the damage. The second issue concerning special damages was not considered because its determination had become academic after the failure of the negligence claim.

Kekere-Ekun JSC and Galumje JSC agreed with the lead judgment. Nweze JSC also concurred, stressing that the maxim is a practical evidential guide rather than a magical formula or a substantive principle of law. He reiterated the requirements that the occurrence be unexplained, ordinarily inconsistent with the exercise of proper care, and attributable in the circumstances to the defendant rather than another person.

Eko JSC dissented. In his view, the appellant did not know what caused the bus to leave the highway and ignite, while the respondents were better placed to explain the event. He considered DW1’s evidence unreliable and incapable of proving the alleged armed-robbery mechanism because the witness claimed to have been shot, rendered unconscious and removed from the vehicle. Eko JSC would have restored the trial court’s judgment and awarded N500,000.00 costs to the appellant.

Conclusion

The majority affirmed the Court of Appeal’s judgment and dismissed the appeal. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs. The decision establishes that res ipsa loquitur cannot be used to fill gaps in a negligence case where the evidence sufficiently discloses the cause of the accident, even if the claimant challenges the credibility or adequacy of the defendant’s explanation.

Significance

The case is significant for Nigerian tort and evidence law because it carefully defines the limited role of res ipsa loquitur. A claimant may plead it in the alternative to specific particulars of negligence, but must understand that it is available only where the relevant facts remain unexplained and the circumstances point naturally to the defendant’s negligence. It shifts an evidential burden; it does not relieve the claimant of proving that the defendant controlled the thing responsible for the injury or that the occurrence is properly attributable to the defendant. The decision also highlights the importance of direct oral evidence under section 126 of the Evidence Act 2011 and the procedural consequence of failing to appeal an adverse finding.