LEGAL NUGGETS (Series 116) - ISSUE: SPECIAL DAMAGES-Whether a Claim for Special Damages Will Succeed Based on Admission.- By Adedotun Habeeb Adetunji, LL.M (M.IoD), FCAI

MOBIL PRODUCING (NIG.) UNLTD. vs. KOFA & ORS.(2018)LPELR-46709(CA)

ISSUE: 
SPECIAL DAMAGES-Whether a claim for special damages will succeed based on admission

PRINCIPLE:
"In addition, from a close perusal of the Respondents' claim, one cannot be left in doubt that the claims are in the specie of special damages which must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. This was not done by the Respondents in the instant case.
Even though the Appellants did not traverse the Respondents averment that the Appellant's agent destroyed their fishing gears, and the testimony of PW1 on this point was not controverted, it is trite that admission of special damages does not absolve a claimant from strict proof.
Put simply, a claim for special damages cannot succeed solely on admission.

See NNPC v. CLIFCO NIG. LTD. (2011) 4 MJSC 142 at 174 where the Supreme Court, aptly held that special damages are never inferred from the nature of the act complained of.

See also UNILORIN TEACHING HOSPITAL v. ABEGUNDE (2013) LPELR - 21375 (CA); ARAB CONSTRUCTION LTD. & ANOR. v. ISAAC (2012) LPELR - 9787 (CA)." Per OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, JCA.(Pp.30-31,Paras.E-D).

ALIYU vs. BULAKI(2019)
LPELR-46513(CA)

ISSUE: SPECIAL DAMAGES-Whether a claim for special damages will succeed based on admission

PRINCIPLE:
"The paramount question that arises is whether a claim for special damages such as the Respondent's claim in the instant appeal, will succeed on the defendant's part admission of the claim.

This was the question answered by the Supreme Court in the case of NNPC V. CLIFCO NIG. LTD. (2011) 4 MJSC 142 at 174 as follows:
"A claim for special damages will not succeed simply because there is admission of claim, special damages are never inferred from the nature of the act complained of. They do not follow in the ordinary course as is the case with general damages. They are exceptional and so must be claimed specifically and proved strictly."

See Incar v. Benson (1975) 3 SC 117; Odulaja v. Haddad (1973) 11 SC 357." Stressing further on the need to strictly prove special damages, the same Court in the case of NEKA BBB MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. V. AFRICAN CONTINENTAL BANK LTD. (2004) 1 SC (Pt. 1) 32 held:

"Where the claimant specifically alleges that he suffered special damages, he must perforce prove it. The method of proof is to lay before the Court concrete evidence demonstrating in no uncertain terms easily cognizable so that the opposing party and the Court will see and appreciate the nature of special damages suffered and being claimed."
" The trite position of the law as
restated in these decisions of the apex Court is that a claim for special damages being exceptional and specific in nature, can succeed only upon concrete proof and not upon admission, either implied or express.

Simply put because special damages are exceptional and specific in nature, they will not succeed and will not be granted as a matter of course upon admission, express or otherwise, even where it is specifically pleaded as required by the law.

In the instant case with the expunction of the evidence of PW1 & PW2 along with all the exhibits tendered through them and the appellant's denial of the claim, the Respondent's claim for special damages cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to have been proved.

The result in that the Respondents claim for special damages cannot succeed. Perhaps, the situation might have been different even with the expunction of the evidence of PW1 and PW2, if the respondent's claim had not been for special damages.

However perforce of law, entitlement to special damages must not only be specifically pleaded, it must also be strictly proved. Admission either on the basis of default of pleadings or on pleadings without evidence to show the claimant's entitlement is not enough.

 The success of a claim in special damages depends on the strict prove of what is claimed. Where the claimant fails to prove his claim of special damages, he cannot rely on the defendant's admission on pleadings and his case is bound to fail." Per WAMBAI, JCA.(Pp.42-45,Paras.E-A).

ISSUE: SPECIAL DAMAGES-Whether a claim for special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved

PRINCIPLE:
"Suffice it to add that parties must succeed or fail on the strength of their case as presented before the trial Court. The Respondent at the Court below claimed for special damages in respect of balance of textile materials given to the Appellant, which the latter gave out to some customers on credit."
However, the claim for special damages makes it subject to fulfilment of conditions for award of special damages. That was tantamount to mere chasing shadows. It is a well-established principle of law that special damages claimed by a party must be strictly proved.
See Dumez v. Ogboli (1972) 3 SC 196 and Agunwa v. Onukwue (1962) 1 All NLR 537. Whenever special damages are claimed, the party so claiming has an uphill task of a strict proof.

In effect the rule requires anyone asking for special damages to prove strictly that he suffered such special damages as he claimed. Thus, the claimant should establish his entitlement to that type of damages by credible evidence of such character as would suggest that he is indeed entitled to an award under that head.
The general law of evidence as to proof by preponderance in civil cases operates
in discharging such burden of proof. The Respondent failed to prove special damages.

Though the Respondent's case was apparently initiated by due process of the law as required by the Rules
of Court, the failure to strictly prove special damages by qualitative and credible evidence renders the claim for special damages liable to be dismissed. Since there is no other claim, the Court
below was left with nothing else to consider.

The Court could neither make out a case for any of the parties nor could it grant any unclaimed relief." Per MUKHTAR, JCA.(Pp.45-46,Paras.D-G).