Download PDF
JUDGMENT This action was commenced by way of Complaint dated and filed the 25th day of August 2014. In the Claimant’s amended Complaint and statement of facts filed on 29th April 2015 but deemed filed on 6th May 2015, the Claimant sought the following reliefs against the Defendants: a. A Declaration by this honourable court that the 1st Defendant was negligent in failing, neglecting or refusing to provide safety working apparels for the Claimant thereby resulting in the damage of the Claimant’s right eye. b. An Order of this honourable court directing the 1st Defendant to comply with basic millennium work place safety standards in all its projects and industrial sites throughout Nigeria. c. A Declaration that the directive of the Defendants jointly or severally to the Claimant to break a dug up concrete drainage with an “E 82 Excavator [rather using a “breaker caterpillar”] by lifting it and allowing it to fall on the earth surface amounts to gross negligence. d. A Declaration by this honourable court as dehumanizing and disrespectful the manner the Claimant’s injury was handled jointly or severally by the Defendants. e. The Claimant’s claim against the 1st Defendants is for the sum of Eighteen Million, Four Hundred and Eighty Thousand [N18,480,000] only, being loss of future earnings for the next 22 years that the Claimant ought to be in active gainful employment. f. The Claimant also claims Five Hundred Thousand Naira [N500,000] being cost incurred for transportation, accommodation, medical bills, maintenance and other sundry expenses in the course of pursuing medical treatments severally from Sagamu Ogun state to Abuja and back. g. The Claimant claims against the 1st Defendant is for the sum of N200,000,000 [Two Hundred Million Naira] only as general damages. h. N5,000,000 [Five Million Naira] only as cost of this litigation against the Defendants. After pleadings were exchanged and all intervening applications were taken and resolved, and the matter having been re-assigned to this court, trial commenced denovo before this court on the 7th day of May 2018. The Claimant testified for himself as CW1. One Ganiyu Oladipo Olasubomi testified on behalf of the Defendants as DW1. Hearing ended on the 2nd day of April 2019 and parties were ordered to file final addresses. These were duly filed and subsequently regularised. Parties adopted their respective Final Addresses on 9th July 2019. CLAIMANT’S CASE The case of the Claimant, when he gave evidence in proof of his claims, is that he was first employed by the 1st defendant as excavator operator and he worked for the 1st Defendant between May 2010 and October 2012. He was re-engaged in August 2013 and worked for the 1st Defendant until he was laid off in November 2014. While he worked for the 1st Defendant, his total monthly salary was N70,000. The Claimant said the 2nd Defendant was an expatriate agent/employee of the 1st Defendant who worked as a concrete supervisor of the 1st Defendant. Upon his re-engagement by the 1st Defendant, the claimant said the 1st Defendant failed to provide safety apparels such as eye shield, helmet, over-all dress, hand gloves, walkie-talkie. The 1st Defendant provided only one pair of safety boots, raincoat and reflective vest. He operated the 1st Defendant’s E 82 Excavator Caterpillar but this caterpillar did not have protective wind shield, air conditioners, eye shield, helmet and other safety gadgets which would have protected or mitigated injury during workplace mishap. On 15th May 2014, he was working at the 1st Defendant’s work site at Ijebu-Ode when the 2nd Defendant instructed him to dig up a concrete drainage which he did. The 2nd Defendant further instructed him to lift the dug-up drainage into a tipper truck but because of the size of the drainage, it could not sit into the bucket of the tipper. The 2nd Defendant directed him to lift up the drainage with the hand of the excavator and allow it to fall to the ground so that it can break into two pieces. The Claimant said he called the 2nd Defendant’s attention to the fact that a breaker caterpillar should be used for that process but the 2nd Defendant insisted the Claimant use the excavator to break the drainage, and that the 1st Defendant will be responsible should anything go wrong. The Claimant said he proceeded to break the drainage as instructed by the 2nd Defendant. As the drainage landed on the ground, it broke but concrete debris from it flew into the Claimant’s right eye, injuring the eye in the process. The 2nd Defendant rushed him to the 1st Defendant’s clinic and eye drops and some tablets were administered. He went back to the 1st Defendant’s clinic the following day where it was found that the eye injury was serious. He was taken to Lynic Hospital Ijebu-Ode and admitted for 4 days. From there, he was referred to the 1st Defendant’s consultant in Beemag Hospital, Ikeja, Lagos. He was treated in that hospital. He was subsequently abandoned by the Defendants and the condition of his right eye continued to deteriorate. He had blurred vision and swollen and reddened eye. With the intervention of the workers union, the Defendants recommended the Claimant for further medical treatment. He was taken to University Teaching Hospital, Sagamu where he was examined by one Dr. H.A. Ajibode who also informed him that the accident completely destroyed the outer lens of the Claimant’s right eye and the inner lens seriously affected. The Defendants, without following medical procedure and without justification, diverted his treatment to a private eye clinic, Newsight Eye Clinic and Surgery, at Sagamu where the same Dr. H.A. Ajibode performed surgery on the right eye on 5th June 2014. When he realised that surgery had been performed on his right eye, he was surprised because it was done without his knowledge or consent after he was sedated. After the surgery, he lost total vision in the right eye. On his check up visit to Dr. H.A. Ajibode on 15th June 2014, Dr. H.A. Ajibode told the Claimant the condition of the eye was worsening. The condition of the eye became worse which made him to consult the National Hospital Abuja. The ophthalmologist who attended to him informed his that two of eye drops prescribed for him by Dr. H.A. Ajibode were wrong and that the surgery performed on his right eye was premature, which may have impeded the natural recovery process of the damaged eye. The ophthalmologists suggested more intensive surgery to restore sight to the damaged eye but medications were prescribed which he purchased. The Claimant said further that his condition is deteriorating daily in the absence of lasting solution to the eye. The effect is spreading to his right ear and his mental health. He is also incurring expenditure on account of transportation, accommodation, medications and other expenses in the course of his treatment in Abuja. The Claimant also said that the 1st Defendant was negligent in failing to provide him with necessary protective gears; failing to deploy a breaker caterpillar to break the drainage; failing to immediately rush him to a reliable eye specialist hospital; allowing him to be treated by an ill-equipped clinic; failing to obtain his consent before authorising surgical operation on his right eye. He is suffering possible permanent loss of vision in his right eye and physical and psychological pains. As a result of the damaged right eye, his employment has been terminated by the 1st Defendant. The Claimant tendered a number of documents in evidence which were admitted and marked as exhibits. He urged the court to grant his claims. DEFENDANTS’ CASE The Defendants called one witness in this action. He is Oladipo Ganiyu Olasubomi, a Public Relations Officer of the 1st Defendant. He replaced the witness the Defendants initially proposed to call. When the witness testified on 2nd April 2019, he adopted his deposition filed on 28th September 2016. DW1 told the court that the Claimant was a staff of the 1st Defendant as excavator operator. The 2nd Defendant was an expatriate staff and supervisor of the 1st Defendant who resigned from 1st Defendant’s employment in 2014. The 1st Defendant provided safety kits and protective apparels for all its workers including the Claimant. The 1st Defendant provided eye shields, helmet, over-all uniforms, hand gloves, walkie-talkies, safety boots, raincoats, reflective vests. On 15th May 2014, the Claimant pulled up the protective screen provided for him out of position. He was also not wearing the protective helmet provided for him and pulled the safety shield on the excavator out of place. The accident occurred out of the recklessness of the Claimant. When the accident occurred, the Claimant was rushed to the 1st Defendant’s clinic immediately. He was taken to some other hospitals for treatment. At Beemag Hospital, the Claimant was diagnosed of traumatic cataract and he was treated with recommendation that he needed a surgical operation. The Claimant did not show up for the surgery. The Claimant was further taken to Alpha Clinic Sagamu where he was diagnosed of traumatic cataract with secondary glaucoma. A surgery was scheduled and the Claimant gave his consent. The surgery was performed on 3rd June 2014 and it was successful. The Claimant was discharged on 9th June 2014. He was to continue to visit the hospital for further examination but he failed to keep the appointment. The 1st Defendant paid all the medical bills and other expenses of the Claimant. The Defendant also paid the Claimant his salaries even though he was not going to work. Other than the hospitals the 1st Defendant took the Claimant to for treatment, the 1st Defendant is not aware that the Claimant went to the National Hospital or any other hospital for treatment. In the 1st Defendant’s response of 18th July 2014 to the letter from the Claimant’s solicitor, the Claimant was told to return for further medical treatment in any hospital of his choice in Nigeria. The Claimant however refused to take benefit of this offer. The Claimant was registered with NSITF and he has filed notification of injury for compensation with the NSITF. DW1 urged the court to dismiss the Claimant’s suit. DEFENDANTS ADDRESS The 1st and 2nd Defendants in their final written address formulated the following issues for determination: 1. Whether the Defendants can be held liable for an alleged medical negligence of a third party - Dr. H. A. Ajibode - an independent contractor. 2. Whether the Defendants can be held liable when the Claimant pleaded and gave evidence that, if not for the surgical operation of Dr. H. A. Ajibode (a third party), the alleged injury to his right eye would have healed naturally. 3. Whether the Claimant - Mr. Friday Oyama - is a reliable witness who gave credible evidence worthy of belief. 4. Whether the Claimant who admitted in his pleading/Reply of having been registered and insured with the Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund (NSITF) thereby bringing his claims/reliefs within the Employee's Compensation Act 2010 (formerly Workmen Compensation Act 2004) can maintain this action against the Defendants without first seeking compensation from the Fund. In other words, whether this suit will not amount to double compensation, frowned upon by law. 5. Whether in law, the, Claimant’s reliefs sought are available to him against the 1st and 2nd Defendants herein. Learned counsel for the 1st and 2nd Defendants sought to argue Issues one and two together. It was the submission of counsel that the Defendants cannot be held liable for the natural disease of the right eye of the Claimant. Counsel also argued that the intervention of a third-party amounts to a break in the chain of causation as seen in the case of ROYAL ADE (NIG.) LTD vs. N.O.C.M. CO. PLC. (2004) 8 NWLR (Pt. 874) 224 per Ejiwunmi JSC at Para. C-D On Issue Three, the 1st and 2nd Defendant counsel contested that the Claimant was not a witness of truth and submitted that the Claimant came to the National Hospital, Abuja, to evaluate his alleged damage for the purpose of computing his benefits under the Workmen Compensation and not because Dr. H. A. Ajibode was not competent as alleged. See AZUBUIKE vs. DIAMOND BANK PLC. (2014) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1393) 116. On Issue Four, counsel submitted that acceding to the monetary claims of the Claimant before the Court will mean that the Claimant will be entitled to double compensation which is frowned upon by law. See OZIGBU ENG CO. LTD. vs. IWUAMADI (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 44. Counsel argued that the suit of the Claimant is premature, as the Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund has not refused to pay compensation neither is it/she even a party to this suit. On Issue 5, counsel submitted that the onus is on the Claimant to put the ratio/percentage of culpability before the court and to prove same. Counsel urged the court to dismiss this suit. CLAIMANT’S ADDRESS The Claimant in his Final written address raised a sole issue for determination to wit: Whether on a calm consideration of the unchallenged evidence of non-provision of protective kits to the Claimant in the circumstances of this case, the Claimant is entitled to Judgment. On the sole issue for determination, learned counsel for the Claimant reiterated that the case of the Claimant is formed on breach of duty of care by the 1st Defendant on the part of the 1st Defendant in not providing the needed work tools needed by the Claimant and which could have mitigated the accident. Counsel submitted that the Defendant has the right to cite a 3rd party i.e. Dr. H. A. Ajibode to offset the damages that may be awarded against it in the circumstances of this case and not suggest that the Claimant should go after Dr. H. A. Ajibode. Counsel placed reliance on Section 12(B) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 2010. On whether it can be said that the Defendant provided the Claimant with the necessary protective equipment suitable for his type of task - operating EB2 Excavator Caterpillar to break up concretes, it was the submission of counsel that the 1st Defendant has not done anything reasonable to protect the Claimant from the industrial accident which occurred on 15/5/14. Counsel submitted that the law is that an unchallenged evidence of a party should be acted upon by the Court provided it is not hollow or unbelievable. See CITEC INT'L ESTATES LTD vs. E. INT'L INC. & ASSOCIATES (2018) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1606) 332 @ 358-359, PARAS. H-D, 360, PARAS. C-D, 368 PARAS. A-C; NEKA B.B.B. MFG. CO. LTD vs. A.C.B. LTD (2004) 2 NWLR (Pt.858) 521 @ 550-551, PARAS, F-A; ODULAJA vs. HADDAD (1973) ALL NLR 191 Counsel contended that the authorities cited by the 1st and 2nd Defendants are inapplicable to this suit and submitted that the defence failed to meet the case of the Claimant instead put up a claim that the Claimant had a fracture of the forearm without evidence in that direction and therefore gave no evidence in defence of the case before the Court. Counsel urged the court to grant the reliefs sought by the Claimants. Further arguments proffered and authorities cited by learned counsels were adequately reviewed and necessary reference will be made if required, in the course of this judgment. COURT’S DECISION In determining this case, I will consider the issue whether the Claimant has proved his case to entitle him to the claims he sought. From the facts of the Claimant’s case and the reliefs he sought in the case, it is clear that his case is founded on negligence of the 1st Defendant which caused the injury he sustained in his right eye while performing his duties for the 1st Defendant. In his explanation on how the injury happened, the Claimant stated that he operated an E 82 excavator caterpillar for the 1st Defendant and while he was working at the 1st Defendant’s work site at Ijebu-Ode on 15th May 2014, the 2nd Defendant instructed him to use the E 82 excavator caterpillar to dig up a concrete drainage which he did. The 2nd Defendant further instructed him to lift the dug-up drainage into a tipper truck but the drainage could not sit into the bucket of the tipper because of its size. The 2nd Defendant then directed him to lift up the drainage with the hand of the excavator and allow it to fall to the ground so that it can break into two pieces. The claimant said he told the 2nd Defendant that a breaker caterpillar should be used for that process but the 2nd Defendant insisted the Claimant use the excavator to break the drainage. The Claimant proceeded to break the drainage as directed by the 2nd Defendant but as the drainage landed on the ground and broke, concrete debris from it flew into the Claimant’s right eye, injuring the eye. The Claimant said he was taken to several hospitals for treatment and a surgery was even carried out on the eye. Still, the condition of the eye is deteriorating daily. He is suffering possible permanent loss of vision in his right eye and also physiological and physical pains. The Claimant attributed the injury to the fault of the 1st Defendant. He said they failed to provide him safety apparels such as eye shield, helmet, over-all dress, hand gloves, walkie-talkie. The E 82 excavator caterpillar which he operated did not have protective wind shield, air conditioners, eye shield, helmet and other safety gadgets which would have protected or mitigated injury during workplace mishap. The Claimant further alleged that the 1st Defendant was negligent in failing to provide him with necessary protective gears and failing to deploy a breaker caterpillar to break the drainage. It was on these allegations the Claimant sought the 1st relief which is for a declaration that the 1st Defendant was negligent in failing, neglecting or refusing to provide safety working apparels for him, thereby resulting in the damage of his right eye. The Defendants did not deny the fact that the Claimant operated E 82 excavator caterpillar on 15th May 2014 while working for the 1st Defendant and he sustained injury to his right eye on that day. The defence of the Defendants is that the 1st Defendant provided the Claimant safety kits and protective apparels such as eye shields, helmet, over-all uniforms, hand gloves, walkie-talkies, safety boots, raincoats, reflective vests. On the day of the accident, it was the Claimant himself who pulled up the protective screen provided for him out of position and he was also not wearing the protective helmet provided for him. He pulled the safety shields on the excavator out of place and that the accident occurred out of the recklessness of the Claimant. The Claimant has alleged that the 1st Defendant did not provide him with eye shield, helmet, over-all dress, hand gloves and others. Also, the E 82 excavator caterpillar which he operated did not have protective wind shield, eye shield, helmet and other safety gadgets which would have protected or mitigated injury during work place mishap. In effect, the Claimant contends that if these protective items had been provided or available for his use, the injury to his right eye would not have occurred. The 1st Defendant asserted that it provided the Claimant with the said protective kits. The fact that the 1st Defendant said it provided the protective kits for the Claimant is an acknowledgment that the protective kits are necessary for the nature of the Claimant’s work to protect the Claimant from workplace injuries. When the Claimant said the Defendant failed to provide the protective kits, the burden fell on the 1st Defendant to convince the court that the Claimant was actually given or provided the kits. The evidential burden imposed on the 1st Defendant in this issue goes beyond merely saying that the Claimant was provided the protective kits. The 1st Defendant is required to provide evidence showing that the Claimant was provided the kits and that the 1st Defendant made sure he used them. During his cross-examination by counsel for the Claimant, DW1 told the court that when an employee is issued apparels or kits, the employee signs for them. That is to say the 1st Defendant keeps record of protective kits issued to employees including the Claimant. It is that record or document signed by the Claimant to have received the said protective kits that is required to be shown to this court in this case to satisfy the court that the Claimant was issued protective kits as alleged by the 1st Defendant. DW1 however told the court under cross-examination that he does not have any such document signed by the Claimant in court. The Defendants did not produce needed evidence to show that the Claimant was provided protective kits necessary for the nature of his duty. While the Claimant said protective kits were not provided for him to use on the day of the injury and that the E 82 excavator caterpillar he was using to work did not have protective wind shield, the Defendants averred that on the day the incident happened, the Claimant himself pulled up the protective screen provided for him out of position and also pulled the safety shields on the excavator out of place. This is the reason the Defendants posited that the Claimant’s injury occurred out of his own recklessness. From the evidence of the Defendants, it is clear to me that the excavator operated by the Claimant ought to have protective safety screen or shield or had it. It is also clear that the Defendants were aware that the Claimant pulled the protective safety screen or shield off from the excavator on the day the injury happened yet they allowed the Claimant to continue to work with the excavator in that condition. The protective safety screen or shield has its purpose for which it was mounted or installed on the excavator. It is the duty of the 1st Defendant to ensure that the protective safety screen and shield was on the excavator at all times and that the employees do not tamper with it or operate the excavator without the protective safety screen/shield. The 1st Defendant should have ensured that the Claimant did not pull it out or use the excavator without the protective safety screen or shield in place. Going by the averments of the Defendants, the 1st Defendant is said to have stood by and watched while the Claimant removed the protective safety screen or shield from the 1st Defendant’s excavator and did not stop him or caution him for the act of vandalism. The 1st Defendant also watched the Claimant work with the excavator without protective safety screen or shield and did not insist that he does not work without the shields in place. In my view, this depicts a seeming care-free stance of the 1st Defendant in its attitude to the working conditions of its employees. I am also surprised to learn from the evidence of the Defendant that the Claimant removed the protective safety screen/shield from the excavator only on the very day the injury happened. Now, this is quite a co-incidence. It is difficult to believe that the Claimant pulled off the safety shield or screen from the excavator on the very day the injury happened. Rather, a more likely possibility is that there was no safety shield or screen on the excavator in the first place. The 1st Defendant did not provide safety kits for the Claimant and its excavator used by the Claimant to work on 15th May 2014 did not have protective safety shield or screen. Yet, the 1st Defendant allowed the Claimant to operate the excavator without these very necessary protections against workplace injuries. The 1st Defendant failed in its duty of care it owed to the Claimant to ensure that the Claimant was not exposed to injuries while carrying out his duties in the employment. For pieces of concrete to get into the Claimant’s right eyes while inside the excavator indicates that there was no screen mounted on the excavator. The screen or shield would have prevented the debris of concrete from hitting the Claimant’s right eye. The 1st Defendant acted negligently and it resulted to the injury sustained by the Claimant in his right eye on 15th May 2014. When the Claimant narrated the events of 15th May 2014 leading to the injury in his right eye, he said he was instructed by the 2nd Defendant, an employee and agent of the 1st Defendant, to break the concrete drainage in the manner instructed by the 2nd Defendant. The Claimant said he told the 2nd Defendant that a breaker caterpillar should be used but the 2nd Defendant insisted that the Claimant should use the excavator to break the drainage. The Claimant heeded the instruction of the 2nd Defendant and went ahead to do as instructed. It was in the process of breaking the concrete drainage that concrete debris flew into his eyes. The Defendants admitted that the 2nd Defendant was an employee of the 1st Defendant. DW1 said the 2nd Defendant was an expatriate staff and supervisor of the 1st Defendant. The Defendants however did not controvert the averments of the Claimant that it was on the instruction and insistence of the 2nd Defendant that he broke the concrete drainage with the excavator instead of a breaker caterpillar. DW1 did not give any evidence of the events leading to the breaking of the concrete drainage. DW1 only started his explanation from the time after the injury had happened. Under cross examination, DW1 said he was on the site the day of the accident. He said he was some meters away from where the Claimant was using the excavator machine. DW1, though he said he was there on that day, did not say anything to controvert the Claimant’s evidence that it was the 2nd Defendant who instructed him to break the concrete drainage using the excavator instead of using a breaker caterpillar suggested by the Claimant. In effect, the Claimant’s allegation that he used the excavator to break the drainage on the instruction and insistence of the 2nd Defendant is not denied. Also, his allegation that he suggested to the 2nd Defendant that a breaker caterpillar was more appropriate to be used for the task was not denied. In view of the unchallenged evidence of the Claimant, I find and hold that the 1st Defendant was also negligent when it allowed the Claimant to use an excavator to break a concrete drainage in the manner instructed by the 2nd Defendant when a breaker caterpillar would have been a more appropriate machine to be used for the task. The Claimant would have been saved from his present predicament had the 1st Defendant deployed the proper machine for the task. The particulars of negligence alleged by the Claimant include these facts: the 1st Defendant failed to realise the enormity of damage to the Claimant’s right eye by not immediately rushing him to a reliable eye specialist hospital and allowed the condition to linger until 5th June 2014; on 5th June 2014, the Defendants colluded to divert the treatment of the Claimant to an ill-equipped hospital with intention to keep the incidence away from public records; and that the Defendants failed to seek and obtain the Claimant’s consent before authorising a surgical operation on the Claimant’s right eye. The Claimant told this court in his evidence that immediately the incident happened, the 2nd Defendant rushed him to the 1st Defendant’s clinic where he was treated. The 1st Defendant subsequently took him to Lynic Hospital Ijebu-Ode and then to Beemag Hospital Ikeja, Lagos for treatment. He was put on admission and treated in these hospitals. Between 20th May and 4th June 2014, he was abandoned by the Defendants and the condition of his right eye continued to deteriorate. He had blurred vision and swollen and reddened eyes with attendant effects to his health. It took the intervention of the workers union for the defendants to recommend the Claimant for further medical treatment. He was thus taken to University Teaching Hospital, Sagamu for treatment. Without following medical procedure and without justification, the Defendants diverted his treatment to a private eye clinic, Newsight Eye Clinic and Surgery, at Sagamu where Dr. H. A. Ajibode performed surgery on the right eye on 5th June 2014 without his knowledge or consent. Before the surgery, he could use the right eye to identify bright light and make impression of some objects but after the surgery, he lost total vision in the right eye. On 6th June 2014, he was moved to Alfa Clinic, Sagamu, for unknown reasons and he was kept there for 4 days. When it became difficult for him to locate or reach Dr. Ajibode for his medical check up on 29th June 2014, and with the deteriorating condition of the eye, he went to the National Hospital Abuja to start treatment at his own expense. The Claimant consequently sought a declaration that the manner his injury was handled by the Defendants was dehumanizing and disrespectful. This is relief D. DW1 said in his evidence that when the accident occurred, the Claimant was rushed to the 1st Defendant’s clinic and he was taken to some other hospitals for treatment. At Alpha clinic, Sagamu, the Claimant was diagnosed of traumatic cataract with secondary glaucoma and a surgery was scheduled. The Claimant gave his consent and the surgery was performed on 3rd June 2014 which was successful. The Claimant was to continue to visit the hospital for further examination but he failed to keep the appointment. The 1st Defendant paid all the medical bills and other expenses of the Claimant and also paid the Claimant his salaries even though he was not going to work. The 1st Defendant is not is not aware that the Claimant went to the National Hospital or any other hospital for treatment. By a letter dated 18th July 2014 to the letter from the Claimant’s solicitor, the 1st Defendant told the Claimant to return for further medical treatment in any hospital of his choice in Nigeria but the Claimant refused to take benefit of the offer. This letter is Exhibit P. From the evidence of the Claimant, he was attended to medically immediately the injury happened and thereafter. He was taken to a total of 6 hospitals. Under cross-examination, the Claimant confirmed that the 1st Defendant took him to 6 different hospitals in the space of 3 weeks from the date of the accident. The Claimant has not shown that an obligation was imposed on the 1st Defendant to take the Claimant to eye specialist hospital. All these hospitals he was taken include eye clinics. The Claimant has not said the doctors who attended to him in these hospitals and clinics were not qualified to attend to his eye injury. The 1st Defendant also bore the expenses of Claimant’s medical treatment. Contrary to the allegation of the Claimant that he was abandoned by the 1st Defendant, I find that the 1st Defendant did not abandon the Claimant. The 1st Defendant sought medical treatment for the Claimant and promptly too. The Claimant also alleged that his consent was not obtained before the surgery was performed on his right eye. He said he was sedated and when he woke up, he found that the surgery had been performed on his right eye. From the facts narrated by the Claimant, it appears to me he knew a surgery was recommended to be performed on his right eye when he was attended to by Dr. H. A. Ajibode at the Teaching Hospital and told that the outer lens of the Claimant’s right eye had been completely destroyed. The Claimant also knew that the purpose he was taken to Newsight Eye Clinic and Surgery was to perform the surgery on his right eye on 5th June 2014. Exhibit A tendered by the Claimant and pleaded in paragraph 28 of the amended statement of facts is the patient lens implant identification card issued to the Claimant. It discloses that the date of operation was 5th June 2014 in the right eye and the surgeon was Dr. H. A. Ajibode. The surgery that was eventually performed was to remove the damaged outer lens and another one implanted. The Claimant also knew he was being sedated. He couldn’t have been sedated for any reason other than for a surgery. Is it now because the eye condition had become worse after the surgery that he now complains that his consent was not sought? I want to believe that had the surgery corrected the eye defect and the Claimant becomes alright, he would not have complained that his consent was not sought for the surgery. I do not find the 1st Defendant negligent in the manner the Claimant was attended to medically upon the happening of the injury. Accordingly, I do not see merit in relief D sought by the Claimant. In reliefs E and F, the Claimant claims the sum of N18,480,000.00 for loss of future earnings for the next 22 years and the sum of N500,000.00 as cost incurred for transportation, accommodation, medical bills, maintenance and other sundry expenses in the course of pursuing medical treatments. These claims for loss of earnings and expenses are claims in special damages. See OBASUYI vs. BUSINESS VENTURE LTD (2000) 5 NWLR (Pt. 658) 666 at 695: TAYLOR vs. OGHENEOVO (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 610) 1358 at 1374. The law is settled that a claim in special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved at trial. See AMIRA NIG. LTD vs. MALL NIG. LTD (2001) FWLR (Pt. 77) 896 at 924; IBOK vs. SPRING BANK PLC (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 682) 1782 at 1794. To succeed in these claims, the Claimant is expected to specifically plead and supply particulars of his future earnings for the next 22 years and the expenses he allegedly incurred. He is also expected to adduce cogent evidence to substantiate the pleaded facts. In his amended statement of facts, the Claimant pleaded in paragraph 61 that he is currently unemployable and suffers loss of future earnings as at early age of 38. He also pleaded in paragraph 53 that he has made expenditure in respect of fare, accommodation, medication, and other ancillary expenses in the course of commuting from Sagamu to Abuja for both treatment and consultation with his lawyers. He pleaded receipts of the expenses. These are the same things he said in his evidence. The Claimant further tendered some receipts and invoices of the alleged expenses in evidence. These are Exhibits D, E, F, H1, H2, J and M1 to M9. In his pleading, the Claimant did not plead facts to explain how he is entitled to future earnings for up to 22 years. He also did not plead facts of how his earnings for 22 years will accrue to the sum of N18,480,000.00 nor did he plead any fact or computation of how 22 years earning amounted to N18,480,000.00. The Claimant did not also adduce evidence to this end. The Claimant did not supply the basis for the sum he claimed as future earnings for 22 years. The Claimant has not proved that he is entitled to the claim for future earnings in the sum of N18,480,000. As for the expenses, there is no particularization of the expenses. He didn’t plead how much he expended on each head of expenses. The Claimant merely pleaded and tendered the receipts and invoices in Exhibits D, E, F, H1, H2, J and M1 to M9 in evidence. The content or the amounts of the expenses contained in these exhibits were not pleaded. Also, there was no oral evidence adduced to explain what were contained in the receipts and invoices. Notwithstanding these lapses in the Claimant’s claim for expenses, I went further to calculate the sums contained in Exhibits D, E, F, H1, H2, J and M1 to M9. The total sum of expenses in these exhibits is the sum of N31,500. Meanwhile the Claimant’s claims the sum of N500,000 as the expenses he incurred for transportation, accommodation, medical bills, maintenance and others. The Claimant has not established the sum he claimed for expenses. That notwithstanding, Exhibits D, E, F, H1, H2, J and M1 to M9 are receipts and invoices the Claimant has shown he incurred in the course of his seeking medical treatment for his damaged right eye. The interest of justice requires that the Claimant recover these expenses, which is the sum of N31,500, from the 1st defendant. I so hold. The Claimant further claims the sum of N200,000,000 from the 1st Defendant as general damages. General damages are what the law presumes to be the direct, natural or probable consequences of the act complained of in a suit. See G.K.F. INVESTMENT NIG. LTD. vs. NIGERIA TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC LER [2009] SC 177/2005. In a service relationship between an employer and an employee, the employer owes a duty of care to its employees. The employer is always under a duty to take reasonable care for the safety and health of the employee and where an employer fails or was negligent in its duty of care to the employee resulting in injury to the employee, the employer will be liable in damages to the affected employee. See ROYAL ADE NIGERIA LIMITED vs. N.O.C.M. CO. PLC (2004) 8 NWLR (Pt. 874) 206; IYERE vs. BENDEL FEED AND FLOUR MILL LTD (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 453) 1217 at 1244; IGHOSEWE vs. DELTA STEEL COMPANY LTD (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 410) 741 at 757. In this case, I find that the 1st Defendant was in breach of its duty of care which it owed to the Claimant. The Claimant suffered injury to his right eye as a result of the 1st Defendant’s negligence and breach of its duty of care it owed to the Claimant. In my view, the Defendant is liable to pay damages to the Claimant. The purpose of an award of general damages is to compensate the Claimant for damage or injury suffered. The Claimant is entitled to be awarded such sum as will fairly compensate him for the injury and damage which he has sustained. From my assessment of the Claimant’s condition, the sum of N5,000,000.00 is adequate damages for the injury and damage to his right eye. The Claimant has not shown that he spent the sum of N5,000,000 as cost of litigation. There is no basis for the sum claimed by the Claimant as cost of litigation. Let me mention however that, by the rules of this court, cost is at the discretion of the court. In the final analysis of this judgment, I find that the Claimant has proved reliefs A and C. The declarations sought in these reliefs are granted accordingly. Reliefs B, D, E and H have not been proved and are hereby dismissed. For reliefs F and G, for the reasons given in this judgment, they are granted only in the sum of N31,500.00 for expenses and N5,000,000.00 for general damages. Accordingly, the 1st Defendant is ordered to pay the sum of N31,500 to the Claimant as expenses incurred by the Claimant and the sum N5,000,000.00 as general damages. Cost of N100,000 is awarded to the Claimant. Judgment is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge