"The Appellant at paragraph 5 of the statement of claim pleaded negligence and gave particulars of the alleged negligence. At paragraph 6 of the said statement of claim, the Appellant sought for the invocation of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor. The trial Judge applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor, even though the Respondents called evidence to deny any alleged negligence or liability on their part leading to the fire disaster that damaged the Appellant's fuel station. In the light of the available evidence, the lower Court was right when it held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor will not apply in the circumstances of this case, since the appellant's case was built around the tort of negligence. In Barkway v South Wales Transport Co. Ltd (1950) 1 All ER 392 at 394, it was held:- "The doctrine is dependent on the absence of explanation, and although it is the duty of the defendants, if they desire to protect themselves, to give an adequate explanation of the cause of the accident, yet, if the facts are sufficiently known, the question ceases to be one where the facts for themselves, and the solution is to be found by determining whether, on the facts as established, negligence is to be inferred or not." The position of the Law is that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor can be pleaded in the alternative to particulars of negligence. The doctrine clearly does not apply where the cause of the injury is known and negligence can be attributable to individual or group of persons where such negligence is proved. The Appellant in the instant case relied on tort of negligence which it failed to prove. It can therefore not turn round to rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor."

Per GALINJE, J.S.C. IN CHUDI VERDICAL COMPANY LIMITED v. IFESINACHI INDUSTRIES NIGERIA LIMITED & ANOR (2018) LPELR-44701(SC)