NEGLIGENCE AND DUTY OF CARE: THE TRAGEDY OF NEPA’S EXPOSED WIRES By Amina Mustapha Umar and Aisha Abdullatef




Negligence occurs when a party fails to exercise a duty of care to prevent harm to others. Where public institutions fail in this duty, the consequences can be fatal. The failure to repair exposed electric wires is a clear breach of this duty, leading to devastating and preventable tragedies.


Negligence, a cornerstone of tort law, occurs when a party fails to exercise the required duty of care, resulting in harm. The tragic case of N.E.P.A. v. Auwal exemplifies the grave consequences of negligence by public agencies.
On September 15, 2003, the National Electric Power Authority (NEPA), the  Appellant, conducted a mass disconnection exercise in Angwan Mai Gwodo, Zaria, Kaduna State. However, during the operation, live electric wires and a current-carrying metal pole were negligently left exposed on the ground. By the morning of September 16, these hazards turned deadly. Two individuals were electrocuted at different times, with witnesses promptly reporting the incidents to the Appellant’s officials. Shockingly, no immediate action was taken to address the situation. Later that day, the tragedy escalated when the deceased (Nazifi Muhammed Auwal), a 10-year-old schoolboy returning home, stepped on one of the exposed wires. He was electrocuted and died instantly. The Appellant’s officials only acted to remove the live wires at 2:40 p.m.—hours after the first two fatalities. By then, three lives had been lost, all due to the Appellant’s inaction.

The grieving father of the deceased initiated legal action against the Appellant at the Federal High Court, asserting that their negligence directly caused his son’s death. The trial court found the Appellant liable, holding that the agency’s failure to act promptly, despite being aware of the initial fatalities, constituted a gross breach of their duty of care. Damages were awarded in favor of the respondent.

The Appellant appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal, contesting both jurisdiction and the award of damages. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment, emphasizing the Appellant’s gross negligence. Subsequently, the case was escalated to the Supreme Court, where the Appellant argued that there was insufficient evidence to justify the damages awarded.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court dismissed the Appellant’s appeal and reinforced key principles of tort law:
1. Duty of Care: Public agencies, such as the Appellant, owe a statutory duty to ensure their operations do not pose foreseeable risks to the public.
2. Breach of Duty: The Appellant’s failure to promptly act, even after being informed of the first two fatalities, was a flagrant breach of their duty.
3. Proximate Cause: The Appellant’s negligence was the direct cause of the deceased’s death, thereby establishing liability.

This case reaffirmed the principles established in the English case of Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) AC 562, which held that individuals and institutions owe a duty of care to their “neighbors”—those foreseeably affected by their actions or inactions. The Appellant’s negligence was actionable under Nigerian law because all three elements—duty of care, breach, and resulting damage—were conclusively proven.

Beyond its legal implications, this case serves as a moral indictment of the Appellant’s recklessness. Public utility providers are entrusted with safeguarding lives, yet the Appellant’s failure to address a foreseeable hazard resulted in preventable deaths. The judgment stands as a stark warning that negligence, particularly in high-risk industries like electricity distribution, will not go unpunished. The tragic death of the deceased remains a scar on the conscience of public service, underscoring the critical importance of accountability and proactive measures to ensure public safety. Public agencies must prioritize their duty to protect lives above all else. As demonstrated in this case, negligence is not just a legal failing but a moral one—a powerful reminder of the irreplaceable value of human life.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

An Explanation of the Maxim: Leges Posteriores Priores Contrarias Abrogant by Nana-Aishah Manzumah

Image
If there are two conflicting laws applicable to a circumstance, situation or fact, it bears the question of which of these two conflicting laws shall be considered and applied. One cannot just take any one based on speculative mind since the law has to be certain. In this vain, this piece brings to you a thorough research of the subject matter with adequate authorities. The maxim “ Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant ” is translated as “ [s]ubsequent laws repeal prior conflicting ones” — See Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), Page 5327. To put differently, later laws abrogate earlier contrary ones. It is a principle which states that, where two laws or legal instruments conflict, the one adopted later in time, rather than the one adopted earlier, is considered binding on the relevant parties. That is, when two statutes conflict, the one enacted last prevails. The provisions of a later document are contrary to those of an earlier, the earliest must ...
Read more

Non-Eforceability of Memorandum of Understanding & Exceptions thereto By Qosim A. Muhibudeen, SABUK

Image
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is in itself not an enforceable contract. It is, by law, a preliminary negotiation upon which a definite future-reaching contract may or may not be birthed. To be enforceable, something more needs be done subject to the clause stated in the agreement. — Author The position of the law is settled that not all agreements are enforceable contracts; even where all the ingredients of a valid and enforceable contract (which include offer, acceptance, and consideration) are present. A good example of this is an agreement with which offer, acceptance, and consideration have all been furnished but the subject matter of the contract is found to be illegal, immoral, or contrary to public policy. So also is the question of enforceability of MOU agreement, which would be given succinct explanation in subsequent paragraphs. It has been a settled law that a Memorandum of Understanding, which, of course and tradition, predates a formal (not in its str...
Read more

The Legal Effect of Dismissing an Application for Leave to Appeal: Is it a dismissal on Merit or that of Striking out? By Qosim A. Muhibudeen

Image
In this week legal publication, we presented the decision of the Court on: The Legal Effect of Dismissing an Application for Leave to Appeal: Is it a dismissal on Merit or that of Striking out? SHORT EXPLANATION : The well settled position of the law, as well captured in the attached flyer, is to the effect that an application for leave to appeal where so required by law, is a condition precedent to the initiation of a valid appeal, whether of an appeal within time or an appeal out of time. An appeal is within time where an appeal is brought within the statutorily prescribed period or time within which such an appeal should be filed against the decision of a lower Court. For instance, an appeal against the decision of a trial Court lying to the Court of Appeal, in a civil matter, is to be brought within three months. Where such appeal is brought before the expiration of the three months, it is an appeal within time. Otherwise, it is an appeal out of time. The law is, befor...
Read more