Last updated 27/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2009
Academic disputation continues as to whether Nigerian courts are bound to apply English decisions subsequent to 1900. From a practical point of view, however, such decisions are treated as authorities which ought to be followed unless there is strong reason to the contrary. In the area of tort, only when the question of damages has arisen have judges in Nigeria shown conspicuous signs of independence. For practical purposes, therefore, one may treat the Nigerian law of tort as being identical with that of England except where the latter has been modified by statute. The tort of negligence has, of course, been little affected by legislation in England. The most important legislative change, relating to apportionment of damages in contributory negligence cases, has been adopted in all parts of Nigeria. In the Northern States, however, the doctrine of common employment is still in force, and only Lagos has legislation based on the Occupiers' Liability Act, 1957.
2 Salihu v. Tin and Associated Minerals, Ltd., [1958] N.R.N.L.R. 99.
3 Civil Liability (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1961 (Lagos); Torts Law, 1959 (West): Torts Law, 1962 (East); Civil Liability (Survival of Actions, Tortfeasors and Contributory Negligence) Law, 1957 (North).
4 Abolished by Law Reform (Torts) Act, 1961 (Lagos); Torts Laws of East and West.
5 Law Reform (Torts) Act, 1961.
6 [1932] A.C. 562.
7 [1926] 7 N.L.R. 88.
8 [1703] 2 Ld. Raym. 909.
9 At p. 916.
10 [1932] 11 N.L.R. 113.
page 31 note 1 E.g. Clarkv. Kirby Smith, [1964] Ch. 506, and see Winfieldon Tort(8th edn. 1967), p. 353 n.
page 31 note 2 Donaldsonv. Haldane(1840), 7 CI. & F. 762. For a recent example of a Nigerian action against a doctor for professional negligence see Ajegbuv. Etiik(1962), 6 E.N.L.R. 196.
page 31 note 3 18 N.L.R. 74.
page 31 note 4 E.g. Jarmaktmi Transport v. Abeke, [1963] 1 All N.L.R. 180.
page 31 note 5 E.g. Okwodu v. Alii, [1957] W.R.N.L.R. 195.
page 31 note 6 E.g. Adams v. Ibadan City Council, [1961] W.N.L.R. 67.
page 31 note 7 Udev. Bonjut(1954), 14 W.A.C.A. 533.
page 31 note 8 Omagbemi v. Fregene, [1968] N.M.L.R. 108.
page 31 note 9 [1961] W.N.L.R. 173.
page 31 note 10 At p. 175.
page 31 note 11 Agbonmagbe Bank, Ltd. v. C.F.A.O., Ltd., [1967] N.M.L.R. 173.
page 31 note 12 [1964] A.C. 465.
page 31 note 13 At p. 177.
page 32 note 1 Ibid.
page 32 note 2 [1967] N.M.L.R. 231.
page 32 note 3 At p. 234.
page 32 note 4 [1961] All.L.R. 318.
page 32 note 5 In University of Nigeria, Nsukka v. Edward Turner & Sons (W.A.), Ltd., [1965] L.L.R. 33, the learned Judge appears not to have appreciated the possible impact of Hedley Byrnefor he said (at p. 48) “…where the prospect of physical injury is absent…the duty to exercise skill is only contractual.” However, the remark was obiter.
page 33 note 1 [1959]1 Q. B. 55.
page 33 note 2 [1959] A.C. 743. See, e.g. Lord Denning's remark on the danger of the courts being “crushed under the weight of our own reports”: ibid. p. 761.
page 33 note 3 [1934] 1 K.B. 319.
page 33 note 4 (1939) 15 N.L.R. 41.
page 33 note 5 At p. 44.
page 33 note 6 The cases have all involved contributory negligence and are adverted to again under that sub-heading, infra.
page 33 note 7 [1965] 2 All N.L.R. 100.
page 33 note 8 [1958] 1 W.L.R. 936.
page 33 note 9 [1958] 1 W.L.R. 225, 230. The remarks of the learned Master of the Rolls were obiter in a judgment which was reversed by the House of Lords.
page 34 note 1 At p. 103.
page 34 note 2 (Unreported) S.c. 318/67, decided on October 10, 1969 (Supreme Court of Nigeria).
page 34 note 3 (Unreported) C A W/47/70, decided on March 18, 1971 (Western State Court of Appeal).
page 34 note 4 [1955–56] W.R.N.L.R. 83.
page 34 note 5 14 W.A.C.A. 512.
page 34 note 6 [1816] 1 Start. 493.
page 34 note 7 At p. 514.
page 35 note 1 Re Polemis, [1921] 3 K.B. 560.
page 35 note 2 [1961]1 A.G. 388.
page 35 note 3 [1961] W.N.L.R. 173.
page 35 note 4 It has been held by the Supreme Court that such alternative pleading is quite permissible: Okeke v. Obidife, [1965] 1 All N.L.R. 50.
page 35 note 5 Obi v. Madafubuchukwu (1958), 2 E.R.N.L.R. 46.
page 35 note 6 Jibowu v. Kuti CAW/67/69.
page 35 note 7 Thompson v. Adefope SC.318/67.
page 35 note 8 Kuti v. Tugbobo, [1967] N.M.L.R. 419.
page 35 note 9 Faloye v. Olaniyan (1954), 14 W.A.C.A. 608.
page 35 note 10 Igbokwe v. U.C.H., [1961] W.N.L.R. 173.
page 35 note 11 Olaiya v. Ososami, [1959] W.R.N.L.R. 264.
page 36 note 1 Coastal Shipping & Agencies Co., Ltd. v. Manillas & Karaberis, Ltd. SC.388/67, decided 17/10/69.
page 36 note 2 Ude v. Bonjut (1954), 14 W.A.c.A. 533.
page 36 note 3 Lagos Municipal Transport Service v. Ibechim, [1961] L.L.R. 146.
page 36 note 4 Igbahowe v. Osayiobasa, [1966] N.M.L.R. 360.
page 36 note 5 [1950] A.G. 185.
page 36 note 6 CAW/67/69 Western State Court of Appeal, decided March 31, 1970.
page 36 note 7 [1959] W.R.N.L.R. 264, at p. 267.
page 36 note 8 [1969] 1 W.L.R. 1016, at p. 1019.
page 37 note 1 Laurie v. Raglan Building Co., [1942] 1 K.B. 152, quoted in Kuti v. Tugbobo, [1967] N.M.L.R. at p. 423. In both cases proof of a skid was rejected as a defence.
page 37 note 2 [1956] 1 Q.B. 596.
page 37 note 3 [1957] W.R.N.L.R. 195.
page 37 note 4 (1939) 15 N.L.R. 41.
page 37 note 5 [1961] W.N.L.R. 173.
page 37 note 6 [1934] 1 KB 319.
page 38 note 1 (1888) 13 App. Cas.
page 38 note 2 14 W.A.C.A. 512.
page 38 note 3 Rather similar problems have occurred in other contexts. In Gadan v. R. in the same year as Ekwo v. Enechukwu, the Court, presided over by the same President, applied the following passage from an earlier W.A.G.A. case: “It would … be a dangerous precedent to recognise that because a suggestion … is generally prevalent among a community, it is therefore reasonable” (14 W.A.C.A. 442, 443 quoting R. v. Ifereonwe). What a contrast with the same President's statement in Ekwo:“… this is not an occasion for considering the merits of such belief, it is the widespread existence of it which is relevant!” The explanation lies in the facts of the two cases, for Gadan was a murder case, in which the defendant had killed someone he believed to be a witch and had pleaded honest and reasonable mistake of fact under Criminal Code s. 25.
page 38 note 4 The defence of volenti non fit injuria seems hardly ever to have been discussed by the Nigerian courts. In Uja v. Kean, 7 N.L.R. 88, at p. 90, WEBBER, J. seems to have drawn an un-warrantedly wide conclusion from Smith v. Baker, [1891] A.C. 325, saying, “It is very doubtful whether this maxim applies to a case of negligence.” He anyway held that the plaintiff was not volens though he might have been sciens.
page 38 note 5 14 W.A.C.A. 512.
page 38 note 6 [1967] N.M.L.R. 173.
page 38 note 7 [1955–56] W.R.N.L.R. 83.
