CONTAMINATED TROPHY BEER: Man slams N150m suit on International Breweries plc!



Man slams N150m suit on International Breweries plc!

Justice Sonia Akinbiyi of an Ogun State High Court in Ijebu-Ode has urged    a   businessman  Adeosun Adebayo and International Breweries Plc to explore an alternative resolution of their dispute.

Adebayo is seeking N150 million from International Breweries as damages following ill-health he suffered after allegedly consuming contaminated Trophy beer produced by the company.

Joined alongside International Breweries as second defendant is Managing Director Sharelink Proxy Service Ltd, Ijebu-Ode depot.

At the last hearing on April 6, first defendant’s counsel Mr Omotayo Adetona said reconciliation attempts had stalled and that the firm had just appointed a new director who was the person authorisedto negotiate on its behalf.

The judge advised the parties to consider Alternative to Dispute Resolution (ADR) and adjourned till May 17.

The claimant, through his lawyer Wale Ajayi, said on July 20, 2015 he bought and consumed trophy beer produced by the first defendant but it caused him stomach pain, vomiting, stooling, shock, hypertension, amongst others, which landed himin hospital.

He is seeking the sum of N100million, “being damages for shock, pain, agony discomfort and sundry inconveniences” as a result of “the defendants’ negligence on account of consumption of contaminated and harmful Trophy beer.”

He is also asking for the sum of N1,676,000for medical expenses borne by him”as a result of negligent act of the defendants, bottling and selling contaminated and harmful trophy beer to the claimant.”

The claimant is further asking for the sum of N50 million, “being damages for loss of life expectancy as a result of damages to the health of the claimant” and the sum of N5 million as professional fee of the claimant’s lawyer.

In its statement of defence, the first defendant through its lawyer Mr OmotayoAdetona denied that the product that was consumed by the claimant was from its brewing facility.

It contended that if it was from its facility, it must have been tampered with either by the claimant or any other person with a view to making phony claims against the first defendant.

– The Nation

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button