The following joint judgment was delivered:-
KINGDON CJ., NIGERIA, PETRIDES,C.J., GOLD COAST AND GRAHAM PAUL, C.J., SIERRA LEONE.
The claim of the Plaintiff-Respondent in this case was as follows: -
" The plaintiff claims from the defendant the sum of Three " hundred and ninety-seven pounds ten shillings (£397 10s), " whereof the sum of three hundred pounds is for the value " of G.M.C. Lorry A.T. 3335, and titan Trailer Act 3724, " which have been wrongfully seized and detained by the " defendant since the 9th October, }H40, and Ninety-seven pg 114 pounds ten shillings (£97 10s) is for loss of earnings by the "plaintiff from the 9th October, 1940 to date hereof at the rate " of one pound ten shillings (£1 l0s) per diem."
The defence of the defendant-appellant as orally stated at the bar in the Court below was as follows:-
" The writ of summons does not state that in the alternative " of the defendant returning the lorry the £300 will not be " demanded. We say that the ownership of this lorry and trailer is still in A. Chedid. At the time lorry was seized " it was not licensed and had not bf9n licensed for some time "before. The defendant was justified in seizing this lor~' , because the plaintiff had pledged a lorry A.T. 5479 to the " defendant and plaintiff removed certain parts of that lorry " pledged to the defendant and fixed them on the lorry the " subject matter of this action-thereby rendering the other " lorry useless. For this reason defendant went and siezed this "lorry. The defendant has since arranged with the owner " of the lorry A. Chedid to keep the lorry . We deny that " lorry belongs to the plaintiff as he has not paid for it."
The Court below gave judgment for the plaintiff for £350 and costs. The basis of the judgment sufficiently appears from the ('oneluding part of the judgment which is as follows':-
"A. Chedid has not appeared before the Court and has made no " claim to the lorry. The defendant did not seize the lorry on behalf of " A. Chedid. The defendant now claims the lorry seized to be his own,. " No matter how one looks at it the defendant's actIon in seizing this lorry " is wrongful and he is liable to pay damages. The plaintiff purchased " the lorry for £430 and the trailer for £50 in October, 1936, and I " believe the evidence of the plaintiff that the lorry' and trailer were " worth £300 at the time they were seized by the defendant. Even allow"ing him just under 6s a day (from 9th Octo&er, 1940 to date 'of "judgment
