RESEARCHED CASES ON DETINUE

CHIGBU v  TONIMAS NIGERIA & ANOR (2006) LPELR-846; (2006) 4 S.C (Pt II) 186

The Plaintiff claim against the Respondents was on the ground of unlawful and wrongful dismissal of the Plaintiff by the Defendants and continuous detention of the Plaintiff's air conditioner, deep freezer, surface tank, drums, furniture, spare computer, rotary pump, drum hangers, wash-hand basin which the Defendants have wrongfully detained at Ehime Mbano. The Defendants have in spite of Plaintiff's repeated demands refused to return the said things and have wrongfully detained and still detains same.

The court held thus, per Tobi J.S.C;

“Before an action on detinue can be filed, two acts must be present; one from the plaintiff and the other from the defendant.  The plaintiff must make a formal demand for the goods or chattel. The defendant must refuse to return the goods or chattel.  And so an action in detinue cannot be found only on the demand by the plaintiff without a corresponding refusal.”
  

2.      LUKUMAN AMINU v BOLAJI ALASADE & ORS (2010) LPELR-3766(CA)

Sometimes in June 1988, the Appellant entered into a business agreement with the 1st Respondent by virtue of which the Appellant gave the 1st Respondent the sum of N37,000.00 (Thirty Seven Thousand Naira) to buy cocoa beans for the Appellant on commission basis. Following the receipt of the money from the Appellant, the 1st Respondent distributed the money among Six (6) Cocoa Farmers for supply of cocoa. The 1st Respondent was later informed by the Cocoa farmers that heavy rains had rendered their cocoa beans useless. The 1st Respondent passed this information to the Appellant who told him not to bother but hold on, until cocoa beans would be of good quality. In November 1988, the 1st Appellant sent his driver to the 1st Respondent that he was no longer interested in the purchase of cocoa beans and requested the refund of the N37,000.00 (Thirty Seven Thousand Naira). The 1st Respondent sent the sum of N5,000.00 (Five Thousand Naira) through the Appellant's driver. On February 3, 1989, the Appellant accompanied by 3rd and 4th Respondents went to the 1st Respondent's house. The 3rd and 4th Respondents arrested the 1st Respondent and searched his house. After the search, the 3rd and 4th Respondents seized the following from the 1st Respondent:

        i.            Peugeot 404 pickup vehicle and ignition key of the vehicle.

      ii.            Certificate of incorporation of the 1^st Respondent’s Eleduwe (Nig.) Ltd

    iii.            Booklet of way bills

    iv.            A document evidencing a pledge by a coco farmer; and

      v.            A passport belonging to one Jimoh Agbede of No. 86, Amola Street, Modakeke, Ife, deposited as a security for money received from the 1^st Respondent for supply of cocoa to the Appellant.

The first Respondent and the above listed items were taken by the 3rd and 4th Respondent from Modakeke, Ife to Iyaganku Police Station. The 1st Respondent was detained at Iyaganku until 6th February, 1989 before being granted bail.

The trial court gave judgment in the favor of the 1^st Respondent 

Court of Appeal held thus, Per Sidi Dauda Bage J.C.A;  “In the instant appeal, the vehicle Peugeot 404 Pick-up belonging to the 1st Respondent from the record was detained by the 3rd and 4th Respondents; and not the Appellant. The liability of the 3rd and 4th Respondents in respect thereof earlier on in this judgment, is rescued by the provision of the Public Officers Protection Act Cap 379 LFN 1990 which rendered the prosecution against them statute-barred.
As to the Appellant, the 1st Respondent had every opportunity to have mitigated the losses he incurred as a result of the unwarranted detention of his vehicle for a period of about 4 years, as argued by the learned Counsel to the Appellant which this Court agrees with. The 1st Respondent, then the Plaintiff never in the evidence before the Court, denied that money in the sum of N37,000.00 was given to him by the Appellant, whatever it was meant for, the Appellant said, it was a loan to draw some commission, the learned trial Court in its finding calls it a loan. The 1st Respondent said it was not a loan, but the money was given to him by the Appellant to distribute to cocoa farmers. Whatever the money was meant for, one fact stands very clear, the 1st Respondent admitted, when the Appellant sent his driver, one Shittu demanding the refund of the said N37,000.00,he gave to Shittu N5,000.00, leaving a balance of N32,000.00, This fact is from the 1st Respondent himself. If the 1st Respondent wanted to mitigate the long period of the detention of his vehicle he could have paid back the balance of N32, 000.00 to the Appellant, and get back his vehicle. He did not and from the record he has not refunded back the balance of N32,000.00 which he admitted responsibility at least by the singular payment of the N5,000.00. The 1^st Respondent has not taken any reasonable step to mitigate what he refers to as his daily earning from the detained vehicles, yet the learned trial judge awarded to him what he simply asked for.” The court resolved the issue of detinue in favor of the Appellant.

JULIUS BERGER NIGERIA PLC v OMOGUI (2001) LPELR-1638(SC)

The Respondent's Fuel distribution tanker, of Styre make, used for the distribution of Kerosene was involved in an accident along Sapele/Warri Road Junction at Okirigue with a trailer belonging to the Appellant on the 5th of August 1981. Soon after the accident, the Appellant undertook to repair the Respondent's tanker and as a result towed the tanker to its workshop in Sapele. Later, the Appellant changed its mind and instead of affecting the repairs itself, it asked the Respondent to remove the tanker to his workshop, repair it and submit the repair bill to the appellant's insurance company for settlement. The Respondent refused to do so and stood by the earlier agreement and undertaking by the Appellant to carry out the repairs. Realizing this stand, the Appellant again changed gear and asked the Respondent to furnish it with an estimate of the cost of repairs and the amount would be released to the Respondent. The Respondent promptly complied with this last request but all efforts to collect the money from the Appellant to carry out the repairs by the Respondent failed. As a result of this unending tussle the Respondent filed an action in 1981 in the Sapele High Court which went up to the Court of Appeal Benin and finally to the Supreme Court in 1992 where he (respondent) succeeded and the Appellant was ordered to pay him the sum of N32, 000.00. The Appellant paid the said judgment debt but refused to release the Respondent's tanker to enable him carry out the repairs despite repeated demands. The Respondent therefore filed this action, which is the subject of this appeal.

Held –Per S.O Uwaifo JSC; “Detinue is continuing cause of action which accrues at the date of the wrongful refusal to deliver up the goods and this continues until delivery up of the goods or judgment in the action for detinue. The action is in nature of an action in rem in which the plaintiff may sue for the value of the chattel as assessed and also damages for the detention or for the return of the chattel or recovery of its value as assessed and also damages for its detention; or for the return of the chattel and damages for its detention.”

The courts resolve the appeal against the Appellant.

4.     NACENN NIGERIA LTD v BEWAC AUTOMATIVE PRODUCERS LTD. (2011) LPELR-8125(SC)

The Respondent is an automobile sales and service company with the Appellant as one of its customers. Both parties have being doing business together for many years. However, prior to the institution of the present suit, the Respondent sued the Appellant in suit No. E/179/86 and got judgment in the sum of N73,639.94 representing an outstanding debt of previous services rendered to the Appellant. This judgment sum was paid by the Appellant. In the mean time, two tippers with registration No. AN 6619 EB and AN 7322 EB were in possession of the Respondent for repairs. Those vehicles were bought by the Appellant from the Respondent as "brand new vehicles". After the Appellant has complied with the judgment in suit NO. E/179/86, he sent its staff to go and collect the vehicles and it was discovered that the engine of the vehicle with registration No. AN 7322 EB has been replaced with strange engine, and as such the Respondent was no longer in a position to deliver the vehicles. The Appellant made enquiries at the cost of equivalent engine he received quotations and got the naira equivalent from the Cooperative and Commerce Bank Plc. According to the Appellant's witnesses the tippers were being used for civil engineering construction, and they also hired them to other users, the costs of the hiring were stated. The Appellant claimed against the Respondent is the value of brand new engines.

The court held thus: Per J.A Fabiyi J.S.C;  “Since the Appellant was unable to lead evidence in respect of the values of the unusable vehicles. The Appellant would only be entitle to the amount that would buy a used ‘knocked’ engine and ‘accidented’ engine less depreciation”.

Note:  It is extant in the record of appeal that P.W.1, the appellant's Managing Director affirmed that the two vehicles were 'accidented' and 'knocking' ones. They were not in use for a period of between eight (8) and nine (9) years. The appellant did not lead any evidence in respect of the values of the unusuable vehicles. The appellant would only be entitled to the amount that would buy a used 'knocked' engine and 'accidented' engine less depreciation.

5.      J.E OSHEVIRE LTD v TRIPOLI MOTORS (1997) LPELR-1584(SC)

The case for the Appellants was that they took their vehicle, which was earlier involved in an accident, to the Respondents for repairs and the Respondents gave an undertaking to complete the repairs within one month and in addition to replace the damaged parts with new parts. It was common ground that the Respondents were to be paid for their services by the Appellants insurers, the Royal Exchange Assurance Company, less N400.00 for excess, the latter to be sold by the Appellants upon being satisfied that the vehicle was properly repaired. The Respondents failed to carry out their obligation under the contract to affect the repairs skillfully and in a workmanlike manner within the time stipulated; rather what the Respondents produced was a shoddy type of work that fell short of the Appellants expectation. Such that when the Appellants demanded for the return of the vehicle, the Respondents refused; instead they insisted that unless the Appellants signed the satisfaction Note, they would not return the vehicle to them and this, despite the fact they (Appellants) had paid them (Respondents) the N400 excess and kept the vehicle till judgment.

The court held; “…a claim in detinue is basically for the return of the specific chattel detained or its value (as known or assessed); general damages for unlawful detention may, if any is established, be awarded (for they are not to be presumed in this type of action); and even then they are, generally nominal, unless the evidence establishes a case for substantial award under this head of damages.”

The supreme court struck out the appeal and affirmed the decision of the lower court which ordered that the Appellant should release the vehicle in question to the Respondent after the Respondent has fully satisfied the conditions for the repairs, namely the ‘signing of note of satisfaction, but set aside damages awarded for detinue and breach of contract. 

6.  CIVIL DESIGN CONSTRUCTION NIG. LTD v SCOA NIGERIA LIMITED (2007) LPELR-870(SC)

The Appellant at first bought one Ingersoll Cyclone Water Well rig with registration No.LA 2632 WD from the Respondent under a Hire Purchase Agreement for the sum of N431,842.00 which the Appellant eventually fully paid for thus becoming the owner thereof. The second involves a second rig with registration No. LA 8509 WD which the Appellant also bought under a Hire Purchase Agreement for the sum of N514,482.00 in respect of which the Appellant paid the sum of N100,000.00 being two installments of N50,000.00 each remaining unpaid at the time of the dispute between the parties. The facts of the above two transactions are not disputed by the parties. The final or the third transaction involves scrappers, the facts in relation to which are violently disputed by the parties. It is the Appellant's case that on 26/1/84 and 10/2/84 respectively, it bought a road scrapper each on those dates for the sum of N 159,903.00 and fully paid cash for both.

The Appellant further contends that the parties later agreed that the sums paid on the two scrappers be merged and credited to the Appellant on account of the purchase by the Appellant on hire purchase terms of one new rig and 'two service rigs', that the Respondent later expressed its inability to implement the said agreement which made the Appellant to instruct the Respondent to sell the scrappers and make a refund to it of the purchase price for both scrappers.
On the other hand, the Respondent contends that each scrapper was sold for N177,162.00 and that the sum of N159,903.00 paid by the Appellant on each scrapper, was a deposit against the said purchase price and that the Appellant owed the balance of N34,518.00 on both scrappers. It is the further contention of the Respondent that Appellant bought two other scrappers for which no deposit was made but rather, that the Appellant allegedly deposited its rig No. LA 2632 WD as security against the payment due on the said scrappers. The Respondent claimed to have delivered the four scrappers to Sokoto Agricultural Development Project (SADP) on behalf of the Appellant on an alleged instruction of the Appellant which the Appellant denied.

Held: The Supreme Court entered judgment in favor of the appellant.

7.      EKA B.B.B MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD v. AFRICAN (2004) LPELR-1982 SC

The Appellants as plaintiffs had obtained a loan from the Nigerian Building Society by using the title deeds of two of their directors as collateral. The Respondents as defendants redeemed the loan facility hitherto granted by the Nigerian Building Society and retained the title deeds formerly in the possession of the Nigerian Building Society as security. The Appellants claim that later they paid their indebtedness to the Respondents and demanded the return of the title deeds of their directors but when it appeared that the Respondents were unable to trace the whereabouts of the documents, the Respondents "pleaded" with the Appellants to renew their application with them instead of the Union Bank or any other financial institution for that matter. This advice was based on the assertion by the Appellants that they obtained good and reasonable business propositions from some foreign companies and they needed facility from a bank to be in a position to engage in those business concerns, but that the failure or refusal of the Respondents to release these documents to them robbed them of the gains or profits they would or might have realized had the proposed transactions succeeded.

The Respondents in rejecting the claim of the Appellants stated that though the documents were missing, and not being detained, but that after fruitless searches, they obtained or procured the certified copies of those documents which they believed that the Appellants could use for the interim period. But, instead of accepting them, the appellants refused, and rather asked for the duplicate of the certified true copies.

Held : The loss of the title document in question in the circumstances, could only give rise to the tort of detinue or conversion. “In an action for detinue, a Plaintiff can claim for specific restitution of the chattel, or, in default, its value and damages for its detention up to the date of judgment. But where the chattel is not profit earning (as in this case) it is extremely difficult to assess the damages incurred by the plaintiff for detention”

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in the favor of the Respondent.

8.      NEKA B.B.B MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD v AFRICAN CONTINENTAL BANK LTD (2004) LPELR-1982 SC

The Appellants as Plaintiffs had obtained a loan from the Nigerian Building Society by using the title deeds of two of their directors as collateral. The Respondents as Defendants redeemed the loan facility hitherto granted by the Nigerian Building Society and retained the title deeds formerly in the possession of the Nigerian Building Society as security. The Appellants claim that later they paid their indebtedness to the Respondents and demanded the return of the title deeds of their directors which were being detained as claimed by the Appellants. From time to time the Appellants demanded the return of the documents from the Respondents as they stated that they had good offers for a loan from the Union Bank and other financial institutions. The Appellants said that when it appeared that the Respondents were unable to trace the whereabouts of the documents after what the latter claimed was an extensive search, the Respondents "pleaded" with the Appellants to renew their application with them instead of the Union Bank or any other financial institution for that matter. This advice was based on the assertion by the appellants that they obtained good and reasonable business propositions from some foreign companies and they needed facility from a bank to be in a position to engage in those business concerns, but that the failure or refusal of the Respondents to release these documents to them robbed them of the gains or profits they would or might have realized had the proposed transactions succeeded.
The Respondents in rejecting the claim of the Appellants stated that though the documents were missing, and not being detained, but that after fruitless searches, they obtained or procured the certified copies of those documents which they believed that the Appellants could use for the interim period. But, instead of accepting them, the Appellants refused, and rather asked for the duplicate of the certified true copies.

The Supreme Court held that the loss of the title document in question in the circumstances, could only give rise to the tort of detinue or conversion. “ In an action for detinue, a plaintiff can claim for specific restitution of the chattel, or, in default, its value and damages for its detention up to the date of judgment. but where the chattel is not profit earning(as in this case) it is extremely difficult to assess the damages incurred by the Plaintiff for the detention.”

The court dismissed the appeal in the favour of the Respondent.

9.      MARTCHEM INDUSTRIES NIGERIA LTD v V.M.F. KENT WEST AFRICA LTD (2005) LPELR-1842 SC

It was pleaded that a sum of N256, 500.00 was paid in cash to Defendant in its office in the presence of witnesses and the balance of N300,000.00 was on the direction of the Defendant paid into the Defendant's bank account No. 274732 at the Credit Lyonnais Nigeria Ltd., 8, Lagos Street Kano. Before the purchase, Plaintiff's Managing Director was introduced to one Alhaji Ali Kura, who represented himself as an employee of the Defendant. The Defendant delivered the goods purchased to the plaintiff except the 50 KVA Doz. generator, which the Defendant promised to deliver later.

Plaintiff's solicitor sent a letter dated 27/10/94 to the Defendant. On 11th September, 1995, Plaintiff's Managing Director was invited to Sharada Phase II Police Station to inspect one 50 KVADoz generator with a view to confirming if it was the generator sold to the Plaintiff.  The Plaintiff confirmed it. The Defendant later took the generator away from the police station and has since not delivered it to the Plaintiff. The Defendant in its statement of defence denied selling any goods to the Plaintiff or having any contract with it. The Defendant also denied that that the Plaintiff did not pay any money into its account. The Defendant pleaded that it sold goods to Alhai Kura Enterprise for N486,500.00 and duly issued to the firm the material waybill/transfer of ownership. It denied also that Alhaji Kura Enterprises or Alhaji Kura was its employee.

Based on the facts of the case, the plaintiff/appellant duly established his right to the ownership of the 50 KVA generator which can sustain a claim on detinue and there was unchallenged evidence pleaded by the defendant also. The  Supreme Court resolved the issue in favour of the Plantiff/Appellant and held thus “There are important distinction between a cause of action in conversion and cause action in detinue. The former is a single wrongful act and the cause of action accrues at the date of the conversion; the latter is a continuing cause of action which accrues at the date of wrongful refusal to deliver up the goods and continues until delivery up of the goods or judgment in the action for detinue. It is important to keep this distinction clear, for confusion sometimes arises from the historical derivation of the action of conversion from detinue sur bailment(an action to recover property that the defendant acquired by bailment but refuses to return) and detinue sur trover; of which one result is that the same facts may constitute both detinue and conversion. Demand for delivery up of the chattel was an essential requirement of an action in detinue lay only when at the time of the demand for delivery up of the chattel made by the person entitled to possession made the defendant was either in actual possession of it or was estopped from denying that he was still in possession.

Thus, if there had been an actual bailment of the chattel by the plaintiff to the defendant the latter was estopped from asserting that he had wrongfully delivered the chattel to the third person or had negligently lost it before demand for delivery up and the plaintiff could sue in detinue notwithstanding that the defendant was not in actual possession of the chattel at the time of the demand.”

1 ENTERPRISE BANK PLC v. DAN DOLLARS OIL (NIGERIA) LIMITED(2015) LPELR-24510(CA) 

The Respondent as Claimant in the lower Court contended that some time in 2004, the Respondent wanted an over draft facility of N30,000,000.00 (Thirty Million Naira) from the Appellant (the Bank) for which the Bank requested the title documents of the Appellant's Filling Station at Uyo, Akwa Ibom Stateas security for the overdraft if granted. The Respondent through her Managing Director then duly handed over the original Deed of Assignment registered as No.15/15/114 of the Land Registry, Uyo and a Customary Right of Occupancy No.ITR/039/81, both in respect of the said Filling Station to the Appellant/Bank for her to conduct a search at the Lands Registry on the property.

 In the view of the Respondent (then Claimant), the terms and conditions for the grant of the said overdraft facility were quite unfriendly and upon a careful perusal of same, the Respondent out rightly refused the conditions and took no further steps towards facilitating the overdraft. The entire transaction thus failed and as a result of this the overdraft facility was not given to the Respondent. Pursuant to the foregoing development and the failure of the transaction, the Respondent then demanded from the Appellant for the return of her above mentioned documents hitherto intended to be security for the overdraft facility but the Appellant refused and neglected to return them. The Respondent then initiated the proceedings against the Appellant in the Court below and in response according to the Respondent the Appellant admitted being in possession of the documents but claimed that she (the Appellant) had granted the overdraft of N30,000,000.00 (Thirty Million Naira) to the Respondent which the Respondent had not liquidated.

The court resolved the issue against the Appellant and awarded a general damages to the Respondent but refused that of special damages because the Respondent did not state the head and quantum of damage suffered from the detention of the documents, and any of such circumstance of transaction which she lost because of her inability to tender the detained documents in transactions that were frustrated as a result.