Justification for Award of Aggravated, Punitive Exemplary Damages
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden at Abuja
On Friday, the 20th day of June, 2025
Before Their Lordships
Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa
Emmanuel Akomaye Agim
Stephen Jonah Adah
Jamilu Yammama Tukur
Mohammed Baba Idris
Justices, Supreme Court
SC/332/2013
Between
ABDULLAHI ISIYAKU APPELLANT And
UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA RESPONDENT
(Lead Judgement delivered by Honourable Mohammed Baba Idris, JSC)
Facts
The facts of the case, as presented by the Appellant, is that he maintained an account with the Respondent and had deposited the sum of N955,000. Upon attempting a withdrawal at a later time, he discovered that the sum of N350,000 had been withdrawn from his account without his authorisation. Further to this development, the Appellant reported the matter to the Respondent, and the complaint was referred for investigation. The Appellant maintained that his ATM card was at all material times in his possession; that the disputed withdrawals were made in Asaba, a place he had never visited; and denied authorising any third party to use his ATM card, and alleged negligence on the part of the Respondent. The Respondent denied liability, contending that the disputed transactions were carried out using the Appellant’s ATM card and the correct PIN, and that the loss resulted from the Appellant’s negligence in using an easily guessable PIN.
Following the denial of liability by the Respondent, the Appellant took out Writ of Summons against the Respondent at the High Court of Sokoto State, claiming a refund of the authorised withdrawal from his account, damages for unlawful invasion of his privacy and deprivation of his right to use his funds, unreserved written apology for the unlawful invasion of his savings account, and other orders as the court may deem fit.
At trial, the Appellant testified that the bank had stationed personnel at its ATM booths to assist customers in activating their ATM cards and that he had chosen the PIN “1234” for ease of memory and that he was not warned by the Respondent about the risks of using easily decipherable PINs. The Respondent, on its part, admitted that the CCTV camera at its ATM stand was not functional at the material time. At the conclusion of the trial, the court found merit in the Appellant’s case and held the Respondent liable for the unauthorised withdrawals. Accordingly, the court granted the reliefs sought, including a refund of the sum of N350,000, compensation in the sum of N5,000,000, and an unreserved written apology in favour of the Appellant.
Dissatisfied with the trial decision, the Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal, which partly upheld the decision but set aside theN5,000,000 compensation, substituting it with an award of N200,000 as general damages in favour of the Appellant. This informed the appeal by the Appellant to the Supreme Court.
Issues for Determination
The Supreme Court adopted the three issues formulated by the Appellant in its determination of the appeal, to wit:
1. Did the court below have the jurisdiction to have entertained grounds 3 & 4 of the Amended grounds of appeal of the Respondent which were grounds of mixed law and facts, and upon which no leave of court was sought for and obtained before filing and arguing same, and making use of the said grounds of appeal in the determination of the appeal of the Respondent at the court below?
2. Whether the court below was right to have suo motu raised the issue of the arbitrary nature of the award of N5,000,000 only when there was no ground of appeal challenging the arbitrary nature of the award, and when no opportunity was given to parties to address the court below on the issue suo motu raised?
3. Was the court below correct in law to have held that there was no evidence and basis for the award of the sum of N5,000,000 as compensation to the Appellant?
Arguments
On issue one, Counsel for the Appellant argued that an appellate court can only exercise jurisdiction where a competent notice and valid grounds of appeal exist. Counsel argued that grounds 3 and 4 of the Respondent’s amended grounds of appeal were grounds of mixed law and fact because they challenged the trial court’s evaluation of evidence and exercise of discretion, particularly on general damages. Consequently, since no leave of court was sought or obtained to raise these grounds, they were incompetent, depriving the Court of Appeal of jurisdiction to entertain them. The Appellant submitted further that since issue two was distilled from the incompetent grounds, same is incompetent and should be discountenanced. On the other hand, counsel for the Respondent argued that under Sections 241 and 242 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), an appeal lies as of right from the final decision of a High Court. Since the Respondent appealed the final judgement of the High Court of Sokoto State, no leave was required from the trial court or the Court of Appeal, even for grounds involving mixed law and fact. Thus, the lower court had the jurisdiction to entertain the grounds 3 and 4 of the appeal.
Arguing the second issue, counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Court of Appeal wrongly raised the issue of the arbitrariness of the N5,000,000 general damages suo motu, i.e., on its own, when the Respondent’s appeal did not challenge the award on that basis. Counsel further contended that raising and deciding an issue not presented by the parties violated the Appellant’s constitutional right to a fair hearing under Section 36 of the Constitution, and that the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to decide an issue not properly before it. The Respondent countered the submission, stating that the lower court properly considered the issue of the N5,000,000 general damages, as it was raised in the Respondent’s grounds of appeal alleging that the award was excessive. Counsel contended that the issue was not raised by the court on its own but was legitimately part of the appeal argued before the lower court, and that the Appellant had the opportunity to respond. Thus, the lower court acted within its jurisdiction, and its decision did not violate the Appellant’s right to a fair hearing, relying on AKEREDOLU v ABRAHAM & ORS (2018) LPELR-44067.
On the third issue, counsel for the Appellant argued that the trial court properly awardedN5,000,000 in general damages, based on credible evidence of the Appellant’s financial responsibilities and the hardship caused by the wrongful deprivation of his funds. He submitted that the trial court granted the damages because it considered that the Appellant was a businessman with two wives, nine children, and numerous dependents who relied on him financially, and that the unauthorised withdrawal of funds from his account had caused him significant hardship and inconvenience. General damages need not be specifically pleaded, as they are presumed by law and therefore do not need to be precisely quantified. Accordingly, the award was based on evidence, not conjecture, and the lower court erred in interfering, as appellate courts should only alter such awards if they are manifestly excessive, arbitrary, or unsupported by evidence. On its part, it was argued for the Respondent that the basis of the award by the trial court was based on negligence, while damages should aim to restore the claimant to his original position (restitutio in integrum). Counsel argued that the Appellant failed to link his alleged hardships to the Respondent’s actions, making the N5,000,000 award excessive and unsupported by evidence. The reduction of damages to N200,000 by the Court of Appeal was therefore justified, legally sound, and properly grounded in evidence. Counsel urged the court to dismiss the appeal and uphold the decision of the Court of Appeal.
Court’s Judgement and Rationale
In resolving issue one, the Supreme Court reiterated the well-established principle of law on the identification and classification of grounds of appeal, reaffirming that the true nature of a ground, whether of law, fact, or mixed law and fact, is not determined by the label assigned by Counsel, but by a careful and holistic examination of the ground together with its particulars. Relying on
The court reiterated the established guidelines in AIC LTD v TECHNIP & ORS (supra) for classification of grounds of appeal, namely that:
i. a complaint of misapplication or misunderstanding of the law to admitted or proved facts raises a ground of law;
ii. a challenge to the evaluation of facts before applying the law raises a ground of mixed law and fact;
iii. a challenge to the appraisal of facts alone constitutes a ground of fact; and
iv. complaints involving interpretation or application of statutory or constitutional provisions, admissibility of evidence, or failure of the court to pronounce on issues properly raised are grounds of law.
The Supreme Court further held that on the issue of whether leave of court was required, relying on Section 241(1)(a) of the Constitution, an appeal lies as of right from a final decision of a High Court sitting at first instance, irrespective of whether the grounds of appeal are of law, fact, or mixed law and fact, citing ABUBAKAR v WAZIRI (2008) LPELR-54 (SC) (PP. 40 PARA. B) and AJOSE-ADEOGUN v OLOJEDE & ORS (2024) LPELR-62730 (SC). Based on these principles of law, the Supreme Court held that the judgement appealed against was a final decision of the High Court of Justice of Sokoto State exercising original jurisdiction; consequently, no prior leave was required before filing the appeal at the Court of Appeal. The objection challenging the competence of the appeal on the ground of absence of leave was therefore held to be unmeritorious.
Deciding issue two, the Supreme Court held that the issue of the N5,000,000.00 compensation award was properly before the lower court, as it formed part of the reliefs sought at trial, was raised as a specific ground in the Respondent’s Amended Notice of Appeal, and was formulated as an issue for determination in the Respondent’s brief. The Lordships noted that the Appellant responded to, and adopted the issues as framed. Accordingly, the lower court’s pronouncement on compensation was not made suo motu but arose from issues validly submitted and argued by the parties. Thus, the Supreme Court held that the Appellant’s objection lacked merit, and the issue was resolved in favour of the Respondent.
On the third issue, the apex court held that the award of aggravated and/or punitive damages by the trial court was firmly grounded in law and evidence. The decision was based on the finding that the Respondent gravely breached its fiduciary and contractual duties by unjustifiably and persistently denying the Appellant access to his funds, thereby causing severe and prolonged hardship to him and his dependants. The Supreme Court noted that the Respondent’s conduct was not only negligent but also oppressive and demonstrated a reckless disregard for the Appellant’s rights, thus justifying the award of aggravated and punitive damages to compensate for the enhanced suffering, punish the wrongdoing, and deter similar conduct.
Notably, Their Lordships reaffirmed the settled principle of law that aggravated, punitive, or exemplary damages may be awarded where the circumstances of a case disclose conduct by the Defendant that is particularly egregious, outrageous, or high-handed. Such awards are not merely compensatory, but are aimed at punishing the Defendant and deterring similar conduct in the future – ODIBA v AZEGE (1998) LPELR-2215 (SC); G.K.F. INVESTMENT (NIG.) LTD. v NITEL PLC (2009) LPELR-1294 (SC); and ODIBA & ANOR. v MUEMUE (1999) LPELR-2216 (SC). Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the lower court erred in finding that the trial court gave no basis for its award and in substituting it with a lesser sum. The reduced award of N200,000.00 was held to be grossly inadequate and unjust, and the trial court’s award of N5,000,000.00 was reinstated and affirmed.
Appeal Succeeds in Part.
Representation
S. A. Dauda for the Appellant.
A.Y. Abubakar with M.A. Assalaft for the Respondent.
Reported by Optimum Publishers Limited, Publishers of the Nigerian Monthly Law Reports (NMLR)(An affiliate of Babalakin & Co.)
Discussion (0)