STOP SEEING INTRUSIVE ADS, & HAVE PREMIUM FEATURES? Stop seeing intrusive ads and have a smoother reading experience, once you sign up on Judicial Poetry. Sign up now!

PROOF OF DUTY OF CARE IS REQUISITE FOR NEGLIGENCE TO SUCCEED

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

The authorities are replete that a successful plea of negligence consists of proving the trivet issues of duty, breach and subsequent damages. In the case of GKF Investment Nigeria Ltd v. Nigerian Telecommunications Plc [2009] 15 NWLR (Pt 1164) 34, it is settled that the particulars of the pleading the breach of a duty of care is required as stated supra and it can neither be assumed or indirect; where there is no real duty to be exercised by the defendants, negligence will have no limbs to stand and any claim articulated thereon will fail.

— O. Oyewumi, J. Aseidu v Japaul (2019) – NICN/AK/01/2016

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

duty of care, negligence

NEGLIGENCE IS A MATTER OF FACT

In all cases in which damages is being claimed for negligence the Court is to bear it in mind that negligence is a matter of or question of fact and not law and thus a finding as of fact of the act of omission or commission of the defendant must first be made before damages could be assessed. See also M. O. Kanu & Sons Co. Ltd v. First Bank of Nigeria Plc (2006) LPELR 1797 (SC).

— O. Oyewumi, J. Aseidu v Japaul (2019) – NICN/AK/01/2016

Was this dictum helpful?

BANK OWES A DUTY TO MAINTAIN CUSTOMER DETAILS CONFIDENTIALITY

In my view, this measure was put in place to protect each customer’s account from every form of fraud or possible mix up. The bank also owes its customer an unalloyed duty of confidentiality not to disclose these information to third parties and any breach of these duties could give rise to liability in damages...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

BANK HAS DUTY TO EXERCISE REASONABLE CARE IN BANKING BUSINESS

New Improved Manibannc Ventures Ltd v. FBN Plc. (2009) LPELR 8757 (CA); (2009) 16 NWLR Pt. 1167 Pg. 411 the Court held thus:- “It is settled law that a bank has a duty under its contract with its customer to exercise reasonable care and skill in carrying out its part with regard to operations within...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

NEGLIGENCE ARISE WHEN A LEGAL DUTY OWED BY TO THE PLAINTIFF IS BREACHED

LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES v. BALLANYE, 2013 1 NWLR (PT. 1336) 527, The Supreme Court Per Kalgo J.S.C. had this to say: “The general principle is that the tort of negligence arises when a legal duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff is breached and to succeed in an action for negligence the plaintiff must...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

NEGLIGENCE IS A MATTER OF FACT, NOT LAW

This position of the law is inevitable because what amounts to negligence is not law but a question of fact which must be decided according to the facts and circumstances of a particular case. See: KALLZA v. JAMAKANI TRANSPORT LTD. (1961) ALL NLR 747; NGILARI V. MOTHERCAT LIMITED (1999) LPELR SC; (1999) 13 NWLR (PT....

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

BURDEN OF PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE

Furthermore, the burden of proof of negligence falls on the appellant who alleges negligence. This is because negligence is a question of fact, and it is the duty of the party who asserts it to prove it. Thus, the failure to prove particulars of negligence pleaded is fatal to the case of the appellant. –...

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

No more related dictum to show.