Palc Chemical Espanola S.L. v. God Cares Ventures

Law Cases and Principles

Palc Chemical Espanola S.L. v. God Cares Ventures

Suit No.: FHC/L/CS/397/2001
Date: 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2002
Citation: NIPJD/FHC/2002/L-CS-397-2001
Judge: OLOTU, J.
Jurisdiction: Nigeria

BETWEEN

  1. PALC CHEMICAL ESPANOLA S. L.
  2. AFRECOM NIGERIA LIMITED

AND

  1. GOD CARES VENTURES
  2. WOMECO GROUP OF COMPANIES LIMITED
  3. MR. ELIJAH

Case Information

NIPJD CitationNIPJD/FHC/2002/L-CS-397-2001
Case NamePalc Chemical Española S.L. & Anor. v. God Cares Ventures & Ors.
CourtFederal High Court of Nigeria, Lagos Judicial Division
JudgeOlotu, J.
Date of JudgmentFebruary 21, 2002
Suit No.FHC/L/CS/397/2001
JurisdictionNigeria
Focus AreaTrademarks; Passing Off; Counterfeit Products; Damages

Trademark in Dispute

TrademarkPALC
Trademark OwnerPalc Chemical Española S.L.
Authorized DistributorAfrecom Nigeria Limited
ProductsShoe polish, shoe-cleaning foam and other footwear and leather-care products
Nature of DisputePassing off through the unauthorized use of the PALC name and the imitation of the plaintiffs’ products, packaging and containers

I. Facts

Palc Chemical Española S.L., a company based in Spain, manufactured PALC shoe polish and other footwear and leather-care products. Its products carried the distinguishing PALC mark. Afrecom Nigeria Limited had served as the sole distributor of the products in Nigeria and West Africa since 1996.

Afrecom discovered that products resembling the genuine PALC products were being sold by the defendants. On May 17, 2001, it sent a representative to purchase one of the suspected counterfeit products from the first defendant. The purchase receipt was admitted in evidence.

On June 25, 2001, a court bailiff, accompanied by the police and a representative of Afrecom, executed an interim court order at the premises of the first and second defendants. Several cartons of PALC liquid polish and foam were found in the store. An inventory of the products, samples of the suspected counterfeit products and samples of the plaintiffs’ genuine products were admitted in evidence.

The plaintiffs identified several differences between the genuine and counterfeit products. The container of the genuine product was larger. The counterfeit foam was shiny, hard and greasy, while the genuine foam was soft and did not release oil when squeezed.

Despite these differences, the counterfeit products closely resembled the genuine products. Both prominently displayed the PALC name. The packaging and black plastic bottles used for the counterfeit liquid polish were also substantially similar to those used by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs maintained that an ordinary buyer would be unable to distinguish the defendants’ products from the genuine PALC products unless the products were placed side by side and carefully examined.

Afrecom also stated that the defendants’ activities caused a decline in sales and customer complaints about cheaper PALC products in the market. It estimated that the plaintiffs had lost approximately ₦8 million during 1999 and 2000. Sales reportedly improved after the interim court order was enforced.

The first and second defendants neither appeared nor defended the action. The third defendant appeared personally and entered into terms of settlement with the plaintiffs. Those terms were made the judgment of the court between the plaintiffs and the third defendant. The trial continued against the first and second defendants.

II. Reliefs Sought

The plaintiffs sought:

  1. A perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from passing off goods not manufactured by the first plaintiff as genuine PALC products.
  2. A perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from advertising, offering for sale, selling or supplying products bearing the PALC name, PALC Cream Autobrilliant Polish Black, PALC Cream Shoe Cleaner Sponge or any confusingly similar mark.
  3. An order restraining the defendants from interfering with the exclusive distributorship agreement between the plaintiffs except under a lawful contractual arrangement with the first plaintiff.
  4. An account of the profits made by the defendants from the passing off and payment of the resulting amount to the plaintiffs.
  5. An order requiring the removal or obliteration of the PALC name or any imitation of it from the defendants’ goods, containers, packaging, labels and other business materials.
  6. Such further orders as the court considered appropriate.

III. Issues for Determination

The court adopted the following issues:

  1. Whether, having regard to the available evidence, the defendants were liable for passing off.
  2. If the defendants were liable, whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the remedies sought.

IV. Decision

A. Effect of the Unchallenged Evidence

The court held that the plaintiffs’ evidence was unchallenged and should be treated as proved. The first and second defendants did not appear, cross-examine the plaintiffs’ witness or present evidence contradicting the plaintiffs’ case.

B. Passing Off

The court held that the plaintiffs proved passing off. The defendants were traders who, in the course of trade, presented their products in a manner likely to mislead customers and potential customers into believing that the products were manufactured by or connected with the plaintiffs.

The defendants’ acts included:

  • using the first plaintiff’s name as the manufacturer of their products;
  • using the plaintiffs’ PALC trade name and trademark;
  • imitating the appearance, packaging and containers of the plaintiffs’ products; and
  • interfering with the second plaintiff’s position as the sole Nigerian distributor of the first plaintiff’s products.

The differences between the genuine and counterfeit products were not readily apparent. They could be detected only by a discerning purchaser when the products were compared side by side. An ordinary or unwary purchaser encountering the products separately would likely mistake the defendants’ products for the plaintiffs’ genuine products.

The court further held that the misrepresentation was calculated to damage the plaintiffs’ business and goodwill. The evidence of declining sales, customer complaints and the recovery in sales after enforcement of the interim order supported the plaintiffs’ case.

The court noted that proof of actual damage was not essential in a passing-off action. It was sufficient to establish the likelihood or possibility of damage. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs had also produced evidence that their business and goodwill were actually affected.

C. Injunctive Relief

The court granted the plaintiffs’ claims for perpetual injunctions restraining the defendants from passing off their goods as PALC products and from interfering with the plaintiffs’ exclusive distributorship arrangement.

D. Account of Profits

The court refused the request for an account of the defendants’ profits. The plaintiffs’ counsel preferred an award of general damages because the defendants could not be located and might not comply with an order to render an account.

E. Obliteration of the Mark

The court granted the request requiring the PALC name or any imitation of it to be removed or obliterated from the defendants’ products, packaging, containers, labels and related materials.

F. Damages

The court refused to award the ₦8 million claimed by the plaintiffs.

Although the evidence that the plaintiffs suffered losses was unchallenged, they did not provide sufficient records showing how the loss was calculated. In particular, there was no evidence establishing:

  • the plaintiffs’ volume of sales before the infringement;
  • the volume of sales while the infringement continued;
  • the volume of sales after enforcement of the interim order; or
  • the method used to calculate the claimed ₦8 million loss.

The invoices and bills of lading placed before the court showed the general volume of the plaintiffs’ transactions but did not establish a loss of ₦8 million.

The court instead assessed and awarded ₦60,000 as general damages against the first and second defendants jointly and severally.

V. Orders of the Court

The court:

  1. Granted a perpetual injunction restraining the first and second defendants from passing off their goods as the goods of the plaintiffs.
  2. Granted a perpetual injunction restraining them from advertising, offering, selling or supplying products bearing the PALC name or any confusingly similar mark.
  3. Restrained the defendants from interfering with the exclusive distributorship arrangement between the plaintiffs.
  4. Refused the request for an account of profits.
  5. Ordered the removal or obliteration of the PALC name or any imitation of it from the defendants’ products, packaging, containers, labels and related materials.
  6. Refused the plaintiffs’ claim for ₦8 million in damages.
  7. Awarded ₦60,000 in general damages against the first and second defendants jointly and severally.

VI. Legal Principles

Passing Off

A claimant alleging passing off must establish that the defendant, acting as a trader in the course of trade, made a representation to customers or potential customers that was likely to mislead an ordinary purchaser into mistaking the defendant’s goods for the claimant’s goods.

Likelihood of Damage

A claimant does not have to prove actual damage to succeed in passing off. Proof that the misrepresentation is likely or calculated to damage the claimant’s business or goodwill is sufficient.

Unchallenged Evidence

Evidence that is neither challenged through cross-examination nor contradicted by opposing evidence may be accepted and acted upon by the court. However, a claimant must still establish entitlement to the relief sought.

Proof of Damages

Even where a defendant does not challenge a monetary claim, the claimant must provide credible evidence showing how the amount claimed was calculated. A court will not award a substantial sum based only on a general estimate or unsupported assertion.

VII. Significance of the Decision

This decision confirms that copying a product’s name, packaging, containers and overall presentation may amount to passing off where the similarities are likely to cause customers to believe that the counterfeit product originated from or was connected with the genuine manufacturer.

The case also draws an important distinction between proving liability and proving the amount of damages. The defendants’ failure to defend the claim allowed the court to accept the evidence of passing off, but it did not relieve the plaintiffs of the obligation to substantiate the ₦8 million claimed.

The decision is also relevant to anti-counterfeiting enforcement. It shows that manufacturers and authorized distributors may rely on product samples, purchase receipts, inventories, invoices and evidence comparing genuine and counterfeit products to establish passing off and obtain injunctive relief.

Cases Cited

JUDGMENT

OLOTU, J.: As per the Writ of Summons dated and filed on 21st May, 2001, the Plaintiff is claiming against the Defendants jointly and severally as follows –

  1. Perpetual Injunction restraining the Defendants, jointly and severally, by themselves, their Directors, officers, agents, assigns howsoever constituted from passing off or attempting to pass off goods, not the goods of the 1st Plaintiff as and for the foods of the 1st Plaintiff by the use of or in connection there with in the course of trade the names Palc or Palc Cream Auto brilliant Polish Black and/or Palac Cream Shoe Cleaner Sponge and/or any other footwear or leather care product made, sold and distributed by the 1st Plaintiff as listed on the Annexure A hereto on papers, plastic containers, cans or any liquid repository and advertising leaflets or other printed or marked containers.
  2. Perpetual Injunction restraining the Defendants whether by their Directors, officers, servants or agents or any of them or otherwise howsoever from advertising for sale, offering or selling or supplying any products or goods bearing the trade name Palc Palc Cream Autobrilliant Polish Black and/or Palc Cream Shoe Cleaner Sponge any other word so closely resembling the 1st Plaintiff s trademark Palc as to be calculated to mislead and/or deceive the public that the goods or products are the products of the Plaintiff.
  3. An Order restraining the Defendants from interfering with the exclusive distributorship agreement between the Plaintiffs except pursuant to a legal contractual agreement with the 1st Plaintiff.
  4. An Account of that part of the Defendants profits arising from the passing – off and payment of all sums due to the Plaintiffs upon taking such inquiry or account.
  5. The obliteration upon oath of name Palc or any invitation thereof upon all such articles, containers, paper-bags, polythene containers, labels, liquid plastic depositions or repositories used in the course of business by the Defendants which would constitute a breach of prayer 1 above.
  6. Such further or other reliefs as the Court may deem meet the circumstances of this matter .

The 1st and 2nd Defendants did not defend this action at all. In fact, they did not appear in Court neither were they represented by Counsel. The 3rd Defendant appeared in person but he was not represented by Counsel. He however reached terms with the Plaintiffs, same terms were filed and made judgement of the Court between the Plaintiffs and the 3rd Defendants. Thereafter the trial proceeded against 1st and 2nd Defendants only.

One witness testified on behalf of the Plaintiff in the person of the Cyprian Udenwa, an Executive Director of the 2nd Plaintiff. The facts of the case according to the Plaintiffs are as follows –

1st Plaintiff is based in Spain and manufactures Palc shoe polish and other products. The products have a distinguishing mark Palc and they are displayed in a catalogue which was tendered in evidence Exhibit 1. The 2nd Plaintiff has been the sole distributor of the 1st Plaintiff s product in Nigeria, West Africa since 1996. Usually 1st Plaintiff sends invoices with which 2nd Plaintiff collects products which 1st Plaintiff sends to them. Three sets of these invoices were tendered in evidence Exhibits 2A, 2B and 2C respectively. PW1 told the Court that he discovered that the Defendants were faking the Palc products. On 17th May, 2001, he sent someone from his office to purchase the fake product from 1st Defendant. The purchase receipt was tendered in evidence and marked Exhibit 3. When PW1 discovered that the products of the 1st Plaintiff were being faked, he informed 1st Plaintiff who mandated him to take legal steps to pursue it. He recalled 25th June, 2001 when the bailiff of Court accompanied him to the office of the 1st and 2nd Defendants to execute an order of Court. The bailiff and Police broke open the store of the 1st and 2nd Defendants and they saw several cartons of Palc liquid polish and foam. He said he could not quite recall the exact number of cartons of the fake products they found in the store. He however said that the bailiff took an inventory of the goods, a copy of which was given to his lawyer. The inventory was tendered and admitted in evidence as Exhibit 4 and samples of the fake products comprising Palc foam and Palc liquid polish were also admitted in evidence as Exhibits 4A & B and 4C/4D respectively. The Plaintiffs original products, that is, Palc liquid polish and foam were admitted in evidence as Exhibits 5A and 5B respectively. PWI described the differences between the 1st Plaintiff s genuine products and the fake product of the Defendant as follows:

  1. The container of the genuine product is bigger than that of the fake one.
  2. In the case of the foam, the fake foam is dark, shiny and hard while the genuine foam is dark and soft.
  3. When the genuine foam is squeezed, one will not feel or see oil dropping but when you squeeze the fake foam one will see oil dropping out of it.

PW1 said that the activities of the Defendants impacted on his business negatively because he found that this trading in Palc products was low and his customers started complaining that some other products were cheaper than their own. Upon inquiries, they found that their own products were being faked. With the drop in sales, they suffered a loss of about N8 Million in 1999 and 2000. After they obtained the Court Order of 25th June, 2001, the sales of the genuine products picked up again. He gave the estimated value of the products recovered if they were genuine as follows 1. 24 Cartons of liquid polish at N10,800 each = N259,200.00
2. 6 packets of foam x 36 pieces at N100 each = N3,600.00

He then urged the Court to give him judgement as per their Statement of Claim. In his written address, which was read in Court, the Plaintiffs submitted that the evidence of the Plaintiff was unchallenged and should be given due weight. Relied on Nzeribe v. Dave Eng. Company Ltd. (1994) 8 NWLR (Pt. 361) 121 at 137 A – D. He formulated the issues for determination as follows:1. Having regard to the available evidence, are the Defendants liable for passing -off?
2. In the event that the answer to the foregoing is in the affirmative, are the Plaintiffs entitled to the remedies sought?

On issue 1, Plaintiffs Counsel submitted that the essence of the plea of passing off in tort is to prevent unfair dealings by the Defendants from selling products not manufactured by the Plaintiff as if they were the products of the Plaintiff. Referred to Leather Cloth Co. v. American Leather Clothier Co. (1865) 11 H.L. 523 at 528 and Reddaway v. Banham 1896 A.C. 199 HL; Spalding v. Gamage (1915) R.P.C. 273 HL; Trebor (Nig) Ltd. v. Associated Industries Ltd. (1972) N.N.L.R. 60 at 63. Submitted that the essential ingredients of the tort of passing off which the Plaintiffs must establish are 1. A misrepresentation by the Defendants.
2. The misrepresentation must be made by the Defendants as traders in the course of trade.
3. The misrepresentation must be made to customers or potential customers.
4. The misrepresentation must be calculated to injure business or goodwill, and
5. The evidence to strengthen the case of the Plaintiffs against the Defendants.

He relied on Warmick v. Tenemend (1979) A.C. 731 HL, Reddaway v. Banham (supra), Spalding v. Gamage (supra) and Niger Chemists v. Nigeria Chemists (1961) All NLR 171 at 173. Submitted further that the Plaintiffs had established all five ingredients in their uncontroverted evidence. On the 2nd issue, he submitted that Court should grant the reliefs sought by the Plaintiffs in paragraph 28(b) and (c) of the Statement of Claim since it is manifest that the conduct of the Defendants is calculated to divert customers of the Plaintiffs. Relied on Reddaway v. Benthan Hemp Sining Co. (1892) 2 Q.B. 639 at 648 CA. Submitted also that the Plaintiffs are entitled to the other reliefs in paragraphs 28(d) and 28(f). I will adopt the issues formulated by the Plaintiffs Counsel as the issues necessary for the determination of this suit. On the preliminary issue of the unchallenged evidence of the Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs submission is upheld and the unchallenged evidence of the Plaintiffs is deemed as proved. See Nzeribe v. Dave Eng. Co. Ltd. (supra).

Issue 1

I agree with the submission of Learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs about the ingredients which the Plaintiff must prove in a case of passing off. I would however treat ingredients 1 – 4 as one. Therefore the ingredient to be proved would be The Defendants as traders in the course of trade, misrepresented to customers or potential customers their goods in such a manner as to mislead ordinary purchaser and to lead them to mistake the Defendant s goods for the goods of the Plaintiff. See Reddaway v. Banham (supra).

The following ingredients do not need much proof as they clearly manifest in the evidence of PW1, that is 1. The Defendants are traders.
2. In the course of their trading business, they made some representations in respect of their goods to their customers or potential customers.
3. The representations were made to customers or potential customers.

Therefore the only ingredient which needs to be examined is that 3rd one relating to the representation being made to mislead the ordinary purchaser to misrepresent the Defendant s goods for the goods of the Plaintiff. The evidence from the Plaintiffs is that the Defendants products, that is, the foam Exhibits 4A and 4B which his agent purchased in the market and which are not manufactured by him and as described by the Plaintiff s Counsel

(1) very similar to the Plaintiffs product; Exhibit 5A and 5B.
(2) of a pastel colour like Plaintiffs genuine product.
(3) presented in a similar foam like manner with inscriptions of Palc and others on the cover case just like the Plaintiffs product except that the name of the manufacturer that is, the Plaintiffs, is not written on Exhibits 4A and 4B and also that the foam in Exhibits 4A and 4B is more greasy than that of Exhibits 4A and 4B.
(4) PALC is boldly embossed on both of them. These differences on the products can only be observed by a discerning purchaser of the goods when the products are placed side by side. If the products are separated in time and space, the ordinary or unwary buyer certainly would take Exhibits 4A and 4B to be Exhibits 5A and 5B, that is, take the Defendants product to be the Plaintiffs product. This also applies to the liquid shoe polish. The packaging of the 12 bottles in each case and the individual black plastic bottles of the Defendants are with Palc bold emboss and is very similar to that of the Plaintiffs. In this case, the 1st Plaintiff is named as the producer of the Defendant s products. In Niger Chemists Ltd. v. Nigeria Chemists and Anor. (supra). The Court held that the use of the word Nigeria by the Defendants is so similar to the Plaintiff s trade name that there is likely to be confusion and deception. It held relying on Eving v. Buttercup Margarine Coy. (1917) 2 Ch. 1 that ….the danger which can reasonably be foreseen in the present case, namely that people will be misled into thinking that Nigeria Chemists are a branch of or in some way connected with, Niger Chemists. It is a confusion which leads to deception . Applying the above decision to the present case, the Defendants products would be seen to have been made to pass-off as if they were goods of the Plaintiffs. This is even a final case of deception than the one described in the last two cases referred. From the foregoing, we have seen the misrepresentation of the Defendants of their products as submitted by the Plaintiffs Counsel involve (a) The use of the 1st Plaintiffs name as manufacturer of the Defendant s product.
(b) The use of the Plaintiffs trade name and trademark PALC in the Defendant s products.
(c) Imitating the appearance of the Plaintiffs goods in the packaging, containers etc.
(d) The invasion of the right of the 2nd Plaintiff as the sole distributor of the products of the 1st Plaintiff in Nigeria.

I find the case of The Singer Machine Manufacturers v. William Newton Wilson (1877) 3 App Cases 376 at 391 – 392 very relevant to this case. The issue that came up for consideration was that where the 1st producer of an article of manufacture has identified it with a particular name, (just as in this case) whether his own name or a name which is a word descriptive of the article itself, such name becomes a trade-mark and cannot be adopted and employed by another person in advertising a similar article. The House of Lords held that such adoption and employment constituted a wrongful invasion of the property of 1st producer and that the other person who adopted and employed the use of the name will be restrained by injunction. See also Warnick v. Townend and Sons (Hull)(HL) (supra). Where the House of Lords held on appeal that a product having a particular character by reason of its ingredients and having under a descriptive name gain a public reputation distinguishing it from competing products of a different composition, should be protected from deceptive use of its name by competitors and accordingly since there was a misrepresentation made by a trader in the course of trade to prospective customers and ultimate consumers of goods supplied which was calculated to injure the business or goodwill of the Plaintiffs, the essential ingredients of a passing-off action and the action should succeed. See also Trebor Nig. Ltd v. Associated Ind. Ltd. (supra). Based on the foregoing, I find that the 1st four ingredients have been proved by the Plaintiff. The 4th ingredient is that the misrepresentation must be calculated to injure the business or goodwill of the Plaintiff. I agree with the submission of the Plaintiff s Counsel that the Court is to decide from the evidence placed before it if the misrepresentation or representation by the Defendants was calculated and/or intended to deceive. In the case cited by Plaintiffs Counsel in support of this assertion, that is, Reddaway v. Bantham (supra) Lord Machangthen said at Page 217 thereof that …. Reddaway had no difficulty in holding the field against any interloper who hoped to find more profit and less trouble in trading on another man s reputation than on his own merits . I am of the view that this represents the essence of the Defendants actions in falsely representing his goods as those of the Plaintiffs. When he does this, a potential purchaser of the genuine products of the Plaintiffs would be induced or misled to purchase the products of the Defendants as those of the Plaintiffs. The evidence from the Plaintiffs is that their sales had dropped in 1999 – 2000. This is certainly damage to their goodwill. I therefore find this ingredient proved. I would consider the 5th ingredient now. But suffice it to say that proof of actual damage is not necessary. All that the Plaintiff should prove is that of possibility of damage. The Plaintiffs had led evidence to prove that his business and goodwill actually suffered in l999 to 2000 as a result of the Defendant s activities. Moreover there is evidence of the loss of N8 million. And also the evidence that their business picked up after the Interim Orders of the Court were enforced also lends credence to the proof of actual damage. I therefore find this ingredient proved.

Issue No. 2

This is in relation of the remedies to be granted to the Plaintiffs following the proof of the case of passing-off against the Defendants. On the authorities of Reddaway v. Bentham Hemp Spining Co. (Supra), The Singer Machine Manufacturers v. Wilson (Supra) and Trebor Nig. Ltd. v. Associate Industries Ltd (Supra) into the peculiar circumstances of this case, the Plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction to restrain the Defendants from further falsely representing their goods as those of the Plaintiffs. In the circumstances, the remedies claimed by the Plaintiffs in paragraph 28a, b and c are hereby granted. Prayers 28d and e are follow-ups of prayers 28a, b and c. Plaintiffs Counsel submitted that the Court should grant the relief 28d or general damages under relief 28f of the Statement of Claim. He seems to prefer the relief for general damages pursuant to paragraph 28f to the relief under 28d because of the likelihood of the Defendants not obeying the order. This is in view of the fact that they are no where to be found. In the circumstances, relief 28d is not granted but relief 28e is granted. With respect to the Plaintiffs claim of N8 Million as general damages. It is trite that damages naturally flow from an injury. The Plaintiffs claim for N8 Million for loss of custom and trade is taken as proved by reason of the fact that it was unchallenged. But before I can grant the whooping sum as general damages, the Plaintiffs have to satisfy or convince the Court that they suffered loss to the extent of N8 Million. It is not enough to state so generally and hazard a guess as to how much it could have cost. There is nothing to show how the loss of the Plaintiff was assessed at N8 Million. Three invoices and bills of lading with which the 2nd Plaintiff purchases the products along with other products dated 11th January, 2001, 23rd March, 2003 and 10th December, 1999 are exhibits 2a, 2b and 2c before the Court. I see them as an indication of the volume of the Plaintiffs business in Nigeria, that is, about three consignments came in three years. The pages in the ones dated 10th December, 1999 and 23rd March, 2000 are not included. However, there is an indication of the sum total transaction in the column described as payment. The type of currency is not in Exhibits 2b and 2c. The sum total price of each invoice are as follows –

  1. Exhibit 2A – 3,000,000 pesatas or 18,030.36 Euros.
  2. Exhibit 2B – 1,854,540 Currency not stated
  3. Exhibit 2C – 2,015,040

Though the Plaintiffs witness told Court that their sales have picked up after the execution of the interim order, there is no evidence of proof of their volume of sales prior to the discovery of the infringement, during the period the infringement was being carried on and after the interim order was made. All these facts and many others would have helped the Court to determine whether or not the Plaintiffs actually suffered a loss totaling N8 Million as a result of the Defendants infringement of their products. In the circumstances therefore I cannot award general damages for N8 Million. Taking a cue from their terms of settlement reached between the Plaintiffs and 3rd Defendant and filed by them, I assess general damages to be in the region of N60,000. I therefore award N60,000 as general damages against the 1st and 2nd Defendants jointly and severally.

Related Cases: