*Says Online Valuations Not Enough To Prove $108,700 Claim
The High Court of Lagos State, sitting at the Commercial Court House, Tapa Street, Lagos, has declared that the Registered Trustees of Osborne Estate Property Owners & Residents Association and Halogen Security Co. Limited are jointly and severally liable for negligently handling the security of a resident’s home, finding that the defendants breached their duty of care by granting access to burglars through an improper security protocol but dismissed the resident’s claims for the value of stolen luxury items worth over $108,700 and cash of $2,450 and N945,000 on the grounds that he failed to strictly prove the value and ownership of the items.
The judgment was delivered on May 4, 2026, by Hon. Justice K.A. Jose (Mrs.) in Suit No. LD/ADR/4419/2022 between Charles Obioha as Claimant and the Osborne Estate Association (1st Defendant) and Halogen Security (2nd Defendant).
The court awarded N3 million as general damages for psychological trauma, pain and suffering caused by the defendants’ negligence, applied the doctrine of contributory negligence to reduce the award from the N10 million claimed, awarded N500,000 in costs, and ordered post-judgment interest at 10 per cent per annum until liquidation. The court also dismissed the 1st Defendant’s N18.5 million counterclaim in its entirety.
The Facts: A Chef, A CUG Line, and a Burglary
The case arose from a burglary that occurred on Friday, April 15, 2022, at the residence of Charles Obioha within the Osborne Foreshore Estate, Ikoyi, Lagos State one of the most exclusive residential estates in Nigeria.
Obioha, who had travelled out of the country, received information from a domestic staff member that his residence had been burgled. His chef, who was supposed to be at his wife’s shop at Maryland during the day, had remained at the residence claiming stomach upset. The chef subsequently confessed to police that he had invited a team of burglars and members of his criminal gang to carry out the burglary.
The burglars broke into the claimant’s bedroom, destroyed his safe, and made away with luxury items including two Rolex wristwatches valued at $40,000, a Cartier wristwatch ($10,000), an Armani wristwatch ($8,000), a diamond necklace set ($14,000), gold chains, jewellery sets, Hermes bangles, and other valuables totalling $108,700 and N750,000, plus cash of $2,450 and N945,000.
How the Burglars Got In: The Central Dispute
The critical issue before the court was how the burglars gained access to the estate and, by extension, the claimant’s residence.
The estate’s security protocol required that visitors be admitted only through one of three methods: a resident generating an access code from a mobile application, a resident personally calling the security gate with their registered mobile number, or through a CUG (Closed User Group) line which the defendants said was available only to commercial residents.
Obioha’s case was that he did not generate any access code for the burglars, did not call the security gate to clear them, and that the defendants negligently allowed them entry. The defendants countered that the claimant had given a CUG line to security operatives at the Mambilla Estate gate a separate gate within the broader Osborne estate complex near the claimant’s residence and that his chef had been using this line to clear visitors for over a year with the claimant’s knowledge.
Justice Jose found that the evidence of both defendants showed that the proper modes of granting visitor access were either by mobile app or by direct call from the resident. The court also accepted the defendants’ evidence that the claimant had allowed his chef to clear guests through the CUG line at the Mambilla gate.
However, the court made a critical distinction. The CUG line arrangement was for the Mambilla gate not the main estate gate. The defendants themselves had pleaded that the CUG line was not a proper mode of clearing visitors, yet their security operatives at the main gate relied on a call made on that very line to admit the burglars.
“There were some blurred lines as the 2nd Defendant’s operatives at the main gate were not expected to rely on the CUG line given to its operatives at the Mambilla gate to clear in visitors,” Justice Jose held. “This is because the 2nd Defendant’s contract with the 1st Defendant was different from its contract with the Mambilla Estate so it should have used the protocol of the 1st Defendant to clear in guests through the main gate of the estate.”
The court held that the guests ought to have been cleared at the estate’s main gate in line with the protocol of using the access code or personal line of the resident not through the informal CUG line arrangement that existed at a different gate. The defendants therefore breached their duty of care.
Justice Jose applied the three ingredients of the tort of negligence as established by the Supreme Court in Makwe v. Nwuko (2001): the existence of a duty of care, failure to attain the standard of care prescribed by law, and damage connected to the breach.
On the existence of a duty of care, the court rejected the defendants’ argument that they owed no duty of care to the claimant. Applying the landmark principles from Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) and Anns v. Merton London Borough Council (1977) as adopted by the Supreme Court in Anyah v. Imo Concorde Hotels Ltd (2002) and Abusonwan v. Merchantile Bank of Nigeria Ltd (1987), Justice Jose held that the defendants’ actions in granting access to visitors could affect the claimant positively or negatively, and they therefore stood in a position where they owed him a duty of care.
On the standard of care, the court found that the defendants failed to meet the standard they had set for themselves by clearing visitors through an improper protocol.
The court also addressed the claimant’s allegation that the defendants failed to preserve CCTV footage after the burglary. Justice Jose held that once the defendants became aware of the burglary, they should have made efforts to preserve the CCTV for investigation purposes.
“It is certainly not good enough to say the Claimant cannot access the CCTV until the chef who is the alleged culprit is produced. What role or right does the chef have is it not the Claimant that is the resident of the estate and the one to be protected by the Defendants?” the judge stated.
However, since the alleged culprits were ultimately arrested by the police and some items recovered from them, the court found that the failure to preserve the CCTV did not lead to actual damage to the claimant.
Despite finding negligence, the court dismissed the claimant’s claims for the specific value of the stolen items $108,700, N750,000, $2,450, and N945,000 on the grounds that special damages must be strictly proved.
Relying on Onyiorah v. Onyiorah & Anor (2019) LPELR-49096(SC), Justice Jose held that the claimant failed to prove ownership or the actual value of the stolen items. The claimant had tendered Exhibit C3, which consisted of online pictures of similar items with their values, but the court held this was insufficient.
“The Claimant did not however show that he owned these particular items or their value as anybody can get an online publication just as he did and bring that to court. That is not evidence of his own particular ownership or the price at which he bought the items,” Justice Jose held.
Furthermore, the claimant admitted under cross-examination that some of the stolen items had been recovered by the police and were being kept as exhibits, but he never specified what was recovered or the value of those items. The court found it impossible to separate what was recovered from what was not, making the special damages claims unverifiable.
Similarly, the N3 million claim for expenses incurred in providing logistical support to the police was dismissed because the claimant provided no details of how he arrived at the figure.
On the claim for N10 million in general damages for psychological trauma, pain and suffering, the court applied the doctrine of contributory negligence. Justice Jose found that under the estate’s rules, the defendants’ duty was limited to granting access and securing the estate perimeter and common areas, while the claimant had a duty to secure his own personal house and insure his property.
“Having failed to do that it is the view of the Court that the Claimant cannot put all the blame at the foot of the two Defendants,” Justice Jose held.
The court accordingly reduced the general damages award from the N10 million claimed to N3 million, reflecting the claimant’s share of responsibility for the loss.
The 1st Defendant’s counterclaim seeking a declaration that the claimant breached estate rules, N10 million in general damages, N3.5 million in costs of defence, and N5 million in punitive and exemplary damages was dismissed in its entirety.
Justice Jose held that the claimant’s arrangement with the 2nd Defendant’s operatives at the Mambilla gate was separate from his arrangement with the 1st and 2nd Defendants on the estate. The 1st Defendant’s attempt to characterise the claimant as a habitual rule-breaker by referencing building permit issues was found to have nothing to do with the issues at stake.
“The Court will therefore hold that the 1st Defendant has not shown that the Claimant was in breach of the estate rules and regulations. Having so found the 1st Defendant cannot be entitled to the damages claimed, costs and exemplary/punitive damages. Its counterclaim has to be and is hereby dismissed,” Justice Jose ruled.
The court’s final orders were as follows:
The declaration that the defendants are jointly and severally liable for negligently handling the security of the claimant’s residence was granted.
