Facts:

The Appellant alleged that the Respondent recklessly used its equipment, without guidance by the Appellant or its technicians, which led to the breakdown of some of the equipment. The said equipments were delivered to the Appellant’s work yard at Ogo Oloruntedo Street, Ipaja, Agege in Lagos by the Appellant. Later, the Respondent conveyed the equipment from the Work Yard to its Maya Belwa Construction site, using the services of Build Well Plant Equipment Industries Limited, on the condition that the Respondent shall pay a monthly rental fee of ₦88,000.00 (Eight-Eight Thousand Naira only) to the Appellant which shall be subject to upward review by the Appellant depending on prevailing market condition, and that the Respondent shall return the said equipments to the Appellant’s yard at Ipaja, Agege in Ikeja Division of Lagos State on completion of the construction work at Mayo Belwa Adamawa State, among other conditions. The contention of the Appellant is that the failure of the Respondent to return the said equipments on demand, and the refusal to pay the agreed cost of hire/rent, led to the decline of the Appellant’s business as it could neither utilize the said equipments nor buy new ones to replace them. This made the Appellant to lose various construction contracts as it resulted to its hire of similar equipment. Aggrieved by this, the Appellant initiated a suit against the Respondent at the High Court of Lagos State (trial Court).
The Respondent admitted taking the Appellant’s equipments for its construction work at but denied that any agreement or arrangement was made as to the terms of payment for the use of the equipment, and that the understanding was that as friends, they would work out amicably, whatever would be fair consideration between the parties, relative to the use to which the equipments were put. The Respondent’s contention is that most of the equipments were not in good condition and were not adequate for the work the equipments were taken for. That the only working equipment among them was the levelling instrument including the Tripod and staff, which it used. That after the Appellant’s and even the Respondent’s mechanics could not fix the equipment, it brought in an American Consultant Engineer, who, after assessing the equipment, declared them to be unserviceable. The Respondent stated that it was after the American Consultant’s report that it sent the Jones crane back to the Appellant’s Work Yard at Ipaja, Lagos while the other equipment was sent to the Yard of one Mr Ibe (PW3, a well-known equipment hirer), at Agege Lagos.
Upon conclusion of trial, the trial Court dismissed the Appellant’s claims. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal (lower Court), which also affirmed the judgement of the lower court and dismissed the Appellants appeal.
Further aggrieved, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.