Edward Okwejiminor v. Nigerian Bottling Company Plc. and G. Gbakeji
Supreme Court of Nigeria
Judgment Delivered: Friday, January 25, 2008
Citation: 51 NIPJD [SC. 2008] 67/2002
Suit No.: SC. 67/2002
Jurisdiction: Nigeria
Before Their Lordships:
- Aloysius Iyorgyer Katsina-Alu, J.S.C.
- Francis Fedode Tabai, J.S.C. (Delivering the Lead Judgment)
- George Adesola Oguntade, J.S.C.
- Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen, J.S.C.
- Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, J.S.C.
I. FACTS
The Appellant, Edward Okwejiminor, purchased a crate of Coca-Cola products, including Fanta Orange, from the 1st Respondent (G. Gbakeji), who sold drinks bottled by the 2nd Respondent (Nigerian Bottling Company Plc.). Upon drinking one of the bottles (Exhibit H), the Appellant found a dead cockroach inside, became ill, and was hospitalized. A laboratory test confirmed the presence of a Shigella bacterium in both his stool and the Fanta sample.
He sued both Respondents, claiming ₦2,000,000.00 in total damages under five heads. The High Court ruled in his favor against the 2nd Respondent and awarded ₦950,000.00 in general damages, but dismissed the claim against the 1st Respondent. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment. The Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
II. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
Main issue adopted by the Supreme Court:
“Whether on the totality of the case as borne out by the evidence on record the Court of Appeal was justified in reversing the judgment of the trial court and in coming to their judgment dismissing the appellant’s claim.”
— Francis Fedode Tabai, J.S.C.
III. SUPREME COURT’S ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
The Supreme Court found that:
- The trial court’s findings were supported by credible evidence.
- The Court of Appeal improperly relied on unpleaded facts (e.g., the appellant’s breakfast of bread and tea).
- The manufacturer (2nd Respondent) owed a duty of care to the appellant as the ultimate consumer.
- The evidence of contamination and causation was sufficient to hold the 2nd Respondent liable.
- The 1st Respondent was a mere retailer, and in the absence of evidence of negligence, not liable.
IV. KEY QUOTES FROM THE JUSTICES
Key Quotes from Tabai, J.S.C. (Lead Judgment)
- On the evidentiary value of the Fanta and the appellant’s ailment: “I therefore found as a fact that the plaintiff took the Fanta orange drink Exhibit ‘H’ which gave him stomach pain and led to vomiting and stooling and was treated in the hospital by PW2. I accept that plaintiff stool was tested along with the sample of the Fanta orange Exhibit ‘H’ and that plaintiff ailment was caused by the Fanta orange drink which is contaminated and contained a bacterium called ‘Shigella’.”
- On the lower court’s error regarding evidence of bread and tea: “On the taking of bread and tea by the plaintiff along with the Fanta there is nothing like that on record and the fact that bread and tea was taken by the plaintiff along with the Fanta orange drink was never pleaded and therefore ground to no issue at all.”
- On reversal by the Court of Appeal: “From the above, it is very clear that the lower court did not reverse the findings of fact by the trial court under known legal principles relevant thereto which renders the reversal erroneous and liable to be set aside as the same has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.”
- On credibility of trial witnesses: “The evidence of the plaintiff and his witnesses were cogent, convincing and reliable. I watched their demeanour and they appear to me as witnesses of truth. I believe them.”
Concluding Statement from Tabai, J.S.C.
“I therefore restore the findings of fact made by the trial court.”
George Adesola Oguntade, J.S.C.:
“It was not open to the court below to disparage settled issues of fact based on the evidence accepted by the trial court.”
“The appellate court has no business interfering with and dismantling the solemn findings of facts made by the trial court.”
“The court below would appear to have put an unreasonably heavy and unnecessary burden on the plaintiff.”
Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen, J.S.C.:
“The law presumes them [the manufacturer] to foresee the kind of harm that occurred.”
“The question is whether the lower court was right in reversing the findings of the trial court… The lower court did not reverse… under known legal principles relevant thereto which renders the reversal erroneous and liable to be set aside.”
“There is really a limit to cross-examination… it does not matter whether the said evidence came through evidence-in-chief or under cross-examination, the fact must be pleaded.”
Aloysius Iyorgyer Katsina-Alu, J.S.C.:
“I agree with [the lead judgment] and, for the reasons he has given I too, allow the appeal. I abide by the order as to costs.”
Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, J.S.C.:
“Basically, therefore, there existed a duty of care imposed by the law on the defendants to the plaintiff… where the required care has not been taken, the law can hardly exonerate the defendants.”
“The learned trial judge who heard and watched all the witnesses… accepted their testimonies and made a finding that there was a breach of that duty by the 2nd respondent.”
“I affirm [the trial court’s] holdings in that respect… I too allow this appeal.”
IV. JUDGMENT & SUPREME COURT’S FINDING
The Supreme Court held that the trial court’s findings were based on credible and uncontroverted evidence and should not have been disturbed by the Court of Appeal.
- It found that the appellate court improperly relied on issues not pleaded or supported by evidence (such as the plaintiff’s consumption of bread and tea).
- The trial court was right to apply the principle in Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932), establishing a duty of care in product liability cases.
- The contaminated Fanta Orange (Exhibit H) was proven to be sealed and bottled by the 2nd respondent (Nigerian Bottling Company Plc.) and sold by the 1st respondent.
- Medical evidence and consistent testimony supported a link between the contaminated drink and the plaintiff’s illness.
- The High Court’s award of ₦950,000.00 in general damages for pain, suffering, and discomfort was valid and properly assessed.
V. FINAL JUDGMENT
- Appeal Allowed.
- Judgment of the Court of Appeal Set Aside.
- Judgment of the High Court Restored, including the ₦950,000.00 damages.
- Costs of ₦10,000.00 awarded to the appellant against the 2nd respondent.
