₦airaland Forum

Cars Are Parked At Owners’ Risk; The Legal Implications.

by Stanley Alieke, Esq.


Everyone that has a car or rides in a car should have seen this sign that is always conspicuously placed in parking lots or parking spaces ‘cars parked are at owners’ risk’ and you may be wondering what are the are the legal implications of this sign, what if something goes wrong with your car; it gets damaged, burgled or the whole car stolen at the parking lot who will be held accountable. You might have even been in this kind of situation before; what’s the legal implications of the sign; who pays for the damages, what are your rights and remedies at law in this circumstance, who do you sue to recover damages, do you even have enforceable rights or remedies at law?

On 19th of December1986, Justice K.O Anya (rtd) traveled to Owerri for a book launch. When he got to Owerri he checked into a hotel called Imo Concorde Hotel, a renowned hotel in Owerri, Imo State.

When it was time for him to leave the next day, been the 20th of December 1986, he discovered that his car; Pequot 505, AC salon he came to the hotel with had been stolen from the hotel premises where he parked it the previous day.

He decided to sue the hotel management. So he took the hotel management to court, joining the two securities on duty the day he checked and the day his car was stolen to the suit, on the grounds that the respondents were negligent by allowing his car to get stolen. He prayed the court to grant him damages, total damages of N150,000.00; N65,000.00 being a special damages as the current value of his Pequot 505 salon car.

The trial court decided in his favour held that he had a right to action and can recover damages from the hotel which he checked in and his car was stolen and that the defendants are in breach of duty of care which they owed to the plaintiff and consequently are liable to the plaintiff for the loss of his said car so damages was awarded to him.

The hotel management, displeased with this ruling of the trial court, went on appeal. The appeal court reversed the ruling of the trial court holding that he had no right of action against the hotel that his car was stolen from.

Justice K.O. Anya then appealed to the Supreme Court since the decision that the trial court held in his favour was reversed by the Appeal court.

The Supreme court upheld the decision of the court of Appeal and held that Justice Anya cannot recover damages for his stolen car from the hotel. The Supreme Court in its Obiter Dictum stated that the general principle is that the tort of negligence only arises when a legal duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff is breached and to succeed in an action for negligence, the plaintiff must prove by the preponderance of evidence or the balance of probabilities that;

(a) the defendant owed him a duty of care

(b) the duty of care was breached

(c) the defendant suffered damages arising from the breach~ PER A. KALGO, JSC.

The Supreme Court also went further to state that it is a generally accepted principle of negligence that a person only owes a duty of care to his neighbour who would be directly affected by his act or omission.

The question now is ‘who then is your neighbor?

In old case Donaghue v. Stevenson, Lord Atkin provided an answer to the above question that your neighbors (in law) are persons who are so closely and directly affected by your act that you ought to reasonably have them in contemplation as to be affected when you are directing your mind to the acts or omissions which are called in the act in question.

To this effect, the parking facility of a hotel, church, airport, restaurant, supermarket, etc is a gratuitous service given to users of that place and in the absence of express agreement the securities or the management of the parking lot has no legal duty or obligation to provide security for the cars parked in their space hence cannot be held for negligence if anything goes wrong with the car as it is just a moral obligation for them to look after your car and not a legal obligation.

By the reason of this Supreme Court judgement in the case of K.O. Anya V. IMO Concorde Hotel, the sign ‘car parked are at owner’s risk’ is an express and open caveat to everyone that the security men guarding the parking lot owe you no legal duty or obligation to make sure your car is safe neither can they or anyone else be held responsible for negligence if anything goes wrong with your car.

Be it as it may, as it is said that in every general rule there must be an exception, there’s also an exception to this caveat ‘car parked are at owner’s risk’. When you park your car and give the car key to the security men guarding the parking space or the management of the parking space and you draw their attention to where your car is parked, then there may arise a duty of care which places a legal duty and obligation on the management and security of the parking space to make sure your car is safe and secure. If anything goes wrong with your car at that instance you can sue the management of the parking space for negligence and recover damage as they are in breach of duty of care owed to you.

Therefore, if you want to hold the management and security men of a parking lot of a hotel, church, restaurant, supermarket, airport, market, mosque, offices, etc , accountable if anything goes wrong with your car then you must drop the car key with them, and draw their attention to where the car was parked.

Stanley Alieke, Esq.
infoitooknow@gmail.com

You can sue a bank if their ATM fails to dispense cash to you.

by Stanley Alieke, Esq.

Let me tell you some amusing fact I’m sure you may likely not be aware of:

Do you know that you can sue a bank if their Automated Teller Machine (ATM) fails to dispense cash to you in as much as you have money in that account.

Yes, you read right!

Did that surprise you?

Well don’t take my word for it, it is the word and the decision of the court.

The Background story!

Mr. Moses G Jwan is an Eco Bank Plc customer and owns an account with bank which an Automated Teller Machine (Atm) debit card was issued to him on. He tried using the debit card to make a withdrawal in a United Bank of Africa’s Atm gallery. He was debited but cash wasn’t dispensed to him by the teller machine.

He decided to take a legal action. He sued both EcoBank Plc his bank and United Bank of Africa (UBA) the bank that owns the teller machine that didn’t dispense cash to him.

The matter was dismissed in the high court for the technicality of plaintiffs failure to discharge the burden of proof placed on him and he (Mr Moses Jwan) went on appealed and appealed to the court of appeal.

In the court of appeal, Plateau state judicial division, the court held that Automated Teller Machine (ATM) is like a Cheque and failure of it to dispense cash is a breach of Banker/customer duty in as much as the customer have withdraw-able sum in the bank account.

This case is therefore a judicial precedent, laying down the precedent that if your bank’s teller machine fails to dispense cash to you while you’ve got withdraw-able sum in the account, the bank is in breach of their duty to provide cash to you and damages will be awarded against them.

If you are interested to read up the case, the case is reported in the Nigerian Weekly Law Report (NWLR) where it is reported: Moses Jwan V. Eco Bank Plc (2021) 10 NWLR (PT 1785 ) 449 (CA)

Stanley Alieke, Esq.
08128357041

Vicarious Liability: a quick tip for every employer

by Stanley Alieke, Esq.


Vicarious Liability: a quick tip for every employer
Do you know that a master or an employer is held responsible for the actions of the servant or an employee under the employer during the employee’s ordinary course of doing his or her job.

It is called vicarious liability.

Vicarious liability is a form of strict liability under the common law doctrine in which a secondary liability arises placing the superior responsible for the acts and actions of the inferior and the employers or masters which is said to be the secondary parties can be held indirectly liable for an injury caused by the employee even though the employer was not directly involved in the act.


This is usually a recurring incident in workplaces whereby an employee commits a tortious act and the employer is strictly and vicariously held liable for the actions and inactions of the employees; for those actions carried out by the employee during an ordinary course of him doing his job or carrying out his assignment.

The point of vicarious liability is to the effect that an employer is liable for an employee’s negligent actions if they were committed in the course or scope of the employee’s employment or are closely connected with what the employee is authorised by the employer to do. It is the common law that the acts of the employee are authorized by the employer during the course of him carrying out his job description and therefore, the employer must be held responsible for all the acts carried out by the employee during the course of him doing his job.

For instance, if a company driver while delivering the company goods gets involved in an accident and a bystander dies as a result of that accident, the company driver will be held responsible for the accident so also the employer of the driver which is the company will also be held strictly and vicariously responsible for the death of the bystander which resulted from the accident that the driver got into.


The Nigerian police force according to this common law principle of vicarious liability will be held responsible for the actions and the inactions of every police officer under their employment because it is presumed that every action of a police officer carried out during the course of his duty is authorized and sanctioned by his employer which is the Nigerian police force.

Be it as it may, there are ingredients or elements that must be present before Vicarious liability can successfully be prayed; firstly, it must be established that a negligent person was employed. Secondly, the negligent person was acting within the scope of his employment or that the employer authorized the employee to act and lastly, that the employer later ratified the employee’s acts.

Just as it is notable that in every general rule of law there must be an exception: there are exceptions to this common law principle of vicarious liability one of which is that the employee acted on frolic of his own and that his actions were outside the scope of his job description, in that way the employer can disassociate himself from the wrongful actions of the employee and won’t be thereby held to be indirectly responsible for the actions and inactions of his employee.

Stanley Alieke, Esq.
infoitooknow@gmail.com
08128357041

Why you should register your business and trademarks if you are a serious minded Entrepreneur.

November 22, 2021 | by Stanley Alieke, Esq. |


When you register your business, company or organization it becomes a distinct personality at law and can sue and be sued.

Only registered businesses/ incorporations can enjoy governmental benefits like relief funds, government loans, grants etc and its only when your business is registered that you have the legal capacity to bid for contracts and handle projects be it local or international projects, more so, it’s only when your organization is registered, fully incorporated and recognized by the corporate affairs commission that prospective or existing investors and clients can take you serious.

Second scenario;
Imagine losing the brand or trademark you painstakingly built for years and getting bullied for trademark infringement. A stitch in time they say saves a lot and this is the reason you should consider registering your trademark or brand too as you register your incorporations.

The needs of getting your brands trademarked and acquiring your patent rights cannot be overemphasized just as the need of registering your business or organization and you as a serous minded Entrepreneur, CEO, Business owner, Start up owner should consider registering your trademark if you are really in for a roller coaster ride, don’t be like an average Nigerian that leaves everything to chance.

It doesn’t matter if you’ve been using that trademark or brand logo from time immemorial, at law it’s who registers the trademark or brand name/ logo first is the recognized owner as it is the legal principle the first in time takes priority.

Stanley Alieke, Esq.
infoitooknow@gmail.com