A. DIKKO & SONS LTD. V. C.A.C. (2024) 8 NWLR (PT. 1939) 75
ON MEANING AND NATURE OF NEGLIGENCE
Negligence is said to be omission or failure to do something which a reasonable man, under similar circumstances, would do or doing of something which a reasonable and prudent man would not do. Put differently, negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate conduct of human affairs, would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. In other words, negligence can be said to mean the failure to exercise that care which the circumstances demand, that is, the absence of care according to the circumstances. Odinaka v. Moghalu (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt. 233) 1; Ojo v. Ghahoro (2006) 10 NWLR (Pt. 987) 173 referred to (P. 93, paras. C-F).
A. DIKKO & SONS LTD. V. C.A.C. (2024) 8 NWLR (PT. 1939) 75
ON WHAT CLAIMANT MUST PROVE IN AN ACTION IN NEGLIGENCE
For a claim in negligence to succeed, the plaintiff must necessarily prove that the defendant owed him a duty of care and that the defendant was in breach of that duty. In this case, the appellant’s case is that the respondent registered the 2nd company with a name similar or identical with the appellant’s name, in violation or contravention of the provisions of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 1990 and in breach of a statutory duty of care owed the appellant which enabled a third party to claim some cheques meant for the appellant. However, there is no way the appellant can prove that the respondent was negligent or in breach of a duty of care owed it without first establishing that the 2nd company as described had, in fact, been registered by the respondent. And the only way to prove that is by the production of the certificate of incorporation of the 2nd company, which was not produced by the appellant. [Oyidiobu v. Okechukwu (1972) 5 SC 191 referred to.] (Pp. 93-95, para. G; paras. H-B.