Nigerian Bottling Company Ltd. v. Constance Obi Ngonadi
Supreme Court of Nigeria
Judgment delivered on Friday, May 24, 1985
Citation: 28 NIPJD [SC. 1985] 103/1984
Suit No.: SC.103/1984
Jurisdiction: Nigeria
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS
ANDREWS OTUTU OBASEKI, J.S.C.
ANTHONY NNAEMEZIE ANIAGOLU, J.S.C.
MOHAMMADU LAWAL UWAIS, J.S.C.
BOONYAMIN OLADIRAN KAZEEM, J.S.C.
CHUKWUDIFU AKUNNE OPUTA, J.S.C. (Delivering the Lead Judgment)
Appearances:
K.S. Okeaya-Inneh (with him, B. E. Isehhien) for the Appellant
Ndidi Edewor for the Respondent
Between:
NIGERIAN BOTTLING COMPANY LTD. …………… Appellant
AND
CONSTANCE OBI NGONADI ………. Respondent
I. FACTS
The essential facts of this case are in the main not in dispute. What seems to be in dispute is whether from those facts one could have drawn the inference of negligence as the trial court and the Court of Appeal did.
The plaintiff in the court of first instance and respondent in this Court “trades on beer and soft drinks on a retail basis or runs a beer parlour.” For the purposes of the said beer parlour, the plaintiff/respondent bought from the defendant/appellant “a kerosine fridge known as and called Evercold Refrigerator/Cooler” Serial Number S/W.77464 OM. 2812. The said refrigerator was delivered by the defendant/appellant to the plaintiff/respondent on 1212175. On or about 14/2/75, the said fridge sold to the plaintiff/respondent caught fire while in use.
The plaintiff/respondent promptly reported this incident to the defendant/respondent who instructed one of its technicians to accompany the plaintiff/respondent to her beer parlour at Agbor and there effect necessary repairs to the now apparently and visibly faulty refrigerator. This was done. On or about the 29th August, 1975 again while in use in the plaintiff respondent’s beer parlour, the refrigerator exploded resulting in extensive personal injuries to the plaintiff/respondent. She was severely burnt and suffered pain and shock. She was treated in several hospitals and she incurred considerable medical expenses.
On these facts the plaintiff/respondent sued the defendant/appellant claiming N50,000.00 being general and special damages for negligence. Pleadings were ordered, filed and duly exchanged. There were several amendments to the pleadings on either side. The case was ultimately tried on the issues rightly raised on the plaintiffs/respondent’s Re-Amended Statement of Claim and the defendant’s/appellant’s further Amended Statement of Defence.
After due hearing, the learned trial judge Maidoh, J. observed:
“I have fully considered the evidence before me and Exhibits tendered in the proceedings ….. The parties agreed that the Defendant Company sold the Evercold Refrigerator to the Plaintiff on or about the 12th of February, 1975 in Benin City. It is not disputed that two days after the purchase the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant Company that the fridge was giving trouble. It is also common ground that Defendant sent one of its workers to rectify the anomaly in the fridge. It is not disputed that on or about the 29th day of August, 1975, the fridge exploded and injured the plaintiffs person. The extent of the pain or injury to the plaintiff was never contested.”
II. JUDGMENT
Lead Judgment by OPUTA, J.S.C.
What then is negligence? It is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.
There is a duty on the manufacturer to ensure that articles sold are fit for the use for which they are intended. This principle, derived from the seminal case of Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) A.C. 562, applies in Nigeria. The appellant, as a manufacturer of refrigerators, owed a duty of care to the respondent as a consumer.
The explosion occurred during normal use. The fridge had been previously repaired by the appellant’s technician. The inference of negligence is irresistible. The burden shifted to the appellant to disprove negligence. They failed to discharge it.
There was no evidence of misuse or tampering by the respondent. The chain of causation between the appellant’s negligence and the injury was clear and unbroken. The extent of the injury was not contested. The learned trial judge was right in holding the appellant liable. The Court of Appeal rightly affirmed.
In conclusion, I find no merit in this appeal. I dismiss it and affirm the decisions of the trial court and the Court of Appeal. I award costs of N300.00 against the appellant.
OBASEKI, J.S.C. (Concurring)
I had the privilege of reading in draft the lead judgment just delivered by my learned brother Oputa, J.S.C. and I agree entirely with his reasoning and conclusions. The facts are straightforward. The law is settled. The appellant’s negligence was clearly established. I too dismiss the appeal.
ANIAGOLU, J.S.C. (Concurring)
I agree with the judgment just delivered by my learned brother Oputa, J.S.C. The principle of res ipsa loquitur applies. An Evercold refrigerator does not explode in the ordinary course of use absent negligence. I concur in the dismissal of the appeal and the order as to costs.
UWAIS, J.S.C. (Concurring)
I have had the opportunity of reading the judgment of my learned brother, Oputa, J.S.C. in draft. I entirely agree. The appellant failed in its duty of care. The appeal is without merit. I dismiss it.
KAZEEM, J.S.C. (Concurring)
I agree with the judgment just delivered by my learned brother Oputa, J.S.C. and I have nothing more to add. I too dismiss the appeal and affirm the award of damages.
II. JUDGMENT
Appeal Dismissed. Decision of the Court of Appeal and the High Court Affirmed.
III. CITATION
(1985) NWLR (Pt.4) 739
(1985) 5 S.C 317
