It was argued that if only the service was not valid, only the service provided by that service should be cancelled. rely on Supreme Court decisions in the following cases; Ezomo V Oyakhire (1985) 1 NSCC (pt. 1) 280 at page 282, para. 30 – 35; Nwabueze V. Obo Okoye (1988) 3 NSCC 53 at page 54; Sken Consult (Nig.) Ltd v. Ukey (1981) 1 NSCC 1; Adegoke Motors Ltd v. Adesanya & 7 ors (1989) 2 NSCC 327 at pages 331(5) to (30) and argued that the learned trial judge should have annulled only the service of the original summons and nothing else, since the validity of the document and its meaning were different issues. We were therefore asked to resolve the issue alone in favour of the complainant, to allow the appeal and to set aside the Court`s decision of 12 July 2012 as erroneous. âThe term “fundamental breach” means a service completely different from the performance provided for in the contract or a more serious breach of contract than a service which would only entitle the other party to compensation and which would give him at least the right to refuse further performance of the contract: Atlantic Switzerland (1967) 1 AC 361, 392, 399. Since, in this case, not only did the defendant not send the plaintiff`s package as agreed, but also lost it, the defendant was guilty of a substantial breach of contract and was therefore not entitled to protection under the indemnification clause in Appendix C. The decision confirms the position of Nigerian law on awarding damages for violations: the court will not award general damages if a violation is alleged and proven. The correct assessment remains an arbitral award that compensates the injured party and puts it back in the situation in which it would have found itself if the breach or infringement had not occurred.
Therefore, the courts will not award general damages equivalent to double compensation. [6] See in general the supreme court decisions of; Dangote General Textiles Products Ltd v. Hascon Associates (Nig) Ltd (2013) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1379) 60; First Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Kayode Abraham (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1118) 172; Arjay Ltd v. Airline Management Support Ltd (2003) 7 NWLR (Pt. 820) 57. The Supreme Court of kastina State seized and rejected the arguments of the respondent/plaintiff. The respondent/appellant appealed, but it was dismissed. The Court of Appeal held that the concept of territorial jurisdiction for offences is based on one or all of the following three factors: (a) where the contract was concluded (lex loci contractus); (b) whether the contract is to be performed (lex loci loci solutions);. and (c) where the defendant is domiciled.
In the present case, the place of performance – in particular the place of supply – was located in the State of Kastina – so that the Supreme Court of the State of Kastina could have jurisdiction in the present case. [3] British Airways argued that the Warsaw Convention of 1929, transposed into Nigerian law by the Air Transport (Colonies, Protectorates and Trust Territories) Order 1953, applied exclusively to Atoyebi`s advocacy. It argued that an air carrier`s liability under the Transport Orders Regulation was limited to the thresholds laid down in Article 22(2) of that regulation. Thus, the acceptance of Atoyebi`s claims in accordance with the principles of non-compliance under ordinary law led to an erroneous assessment of damages and the claims should have been dismissed. In Nigeria, the principles of assessing the amount of damages for violations generally have their roots, as established in the 19th century English case of Hadley v Baxendale. (1) The legal principle set out in this case states that damages for breach of contract must be as follows: The term breach of contract refers to the breach of a contractual obligation, either by breach of one`s own promise or by a deliberate alteration of the performance of the contract by another party. A breach of contract can be caused by non-performance or rejection, or both. Any breach of contract will give rise to a claim for damages and may give rise to other remedies. Even if the injured party does not suffer any financial loss or cannot prove it with sufficient certainty, it is at least entitled to nominal damages.
If a court decides to ignore a minor deviation, there is no violation and no claim is raised. JUDGMENT OF MUDASHIRU NASIRU ONIYANGI, J.C.A. Facts The appellants, as plaintiffs before the High Court of Plateau State, brought an action by subpoena against the defendants (as defendants) who claimed; Possession of the Commodity House locked and inhabited by the respondents, loss of revenue from contracts that the appellants were unable to perform due to a lack of power supply by the respondents, damages for breach of contract, rent arrears, costs of a new 500 KVA transformer and costs of the lawsuit. The trial judge dismissed the applicant`s action. Dissatisfied, the complainants appealed to the Court of Appeal. In the decision on the other remedies requested by the plaintiff, the judge stated: “It is stated that the plaintiff is entitled to the final payment of the contract amount plus interest for the project carried out in accordance with the terms of the contractual agreement on the construction of the model secondary school in the Ewekoro local government area and the model secondary school. in the North Ijebu Local Government between the Ogun State Government and Contemporary Group Ltd of 22 May 2012 and the terms of the letter of 10 December 2013 from the defendant of the Ministry of Public Works and Infrastructure of the State of Ogun to the applicant. When considering such a loss, there should be no purely speculative or sentimental claims, unless they are expressly provided for in the terms of the contract.
It is only in this context that damages can be properly characterized as “special” in the design of contractual arbitral awards. Damages that are normally reimbursable are based on the normal and presumed consequences of the violation that is the subject of the complaint. Therefore, the terms “general damage” and “special” are generally not appropriate to qualify damages for the purposes of awarding damages in the event of default. Apart from the damage that naturally results from the breach, no other form of general damage can be envisaged. 1.1 Contracts sometimes contain clauses that may exclude or limit the liability of a party who is in default of its contractual obligations.
