It is trite law that where fraud is alleged it must be specifically pleaded and the particulars of the fraud given in order to enable the party defending the allegation to understand the case he is facing and thereby prepare his defence.
– Amaizu, J.C.A. Adeniran v. Olagunju (2001)
SHARE ON
Fraud vitiates even the most solemn of all transactions. In fact fraud vitiates everything even judgments and orders of the court. However, a contract or other transaction induced or tainted by fraud is not void but only voidable at the election of the party defrauded. See Western Bank of Scotland v. Addie (1867) L.R.Sc. & Div. 145. Until it is avoided the transaction is valid so that third parties without notice of the fraud may in the meantime acquire rights and interests in the matter which they may enforce against the party defrauded. See Oakes v. Torquand (1867) L.R. 2 H.L. 325,373; ReeseRiver Silver Mining Co. v. Smith (1869) L.R.4 H.L. 64; Carter and Kenderdine’s Contractual) 1 Ch. 776 and United Shoe Co. v. Brunei (1909) A.C. 330.
— Agbaje, JSC. Ugo v Obiekwe (1989) – SC.207/1985
It must be stated unequivocally that this court, as the last court of the land, will not allow a party to use its company as a cover to dupe, cheat and or defraud an innocent citizen who entered into lawful contract with the company, only to be confronted, with the defence of the company’s legal entity as distinct from its directors. Most companies in this country are owned and managed solely by an individual, while registering the members of his family as the share holders. Such companies are nothing more than one-man-business; hence, the tendency is there to enter into contract in such company name and later turn around to claim that he was not a party to the agreement since the company is a legal entity.
– MUNTAKA-COMASSIE JSC. Alade v. Alic (2010)
FDB FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. v. ADESOZA (2002) 8 NWLR (Pt. 668) 170 AT 173, the Court considering the power of a Court to lift the veil of incorporation held thus: “The consequences of recognizing the separate personality of a company is to draw a veil of incorporation over the Company. One is therefore generally not entitled to go behind or lift this veil. However, since a statute will not be allowed to be used as an excuse to justify illegality or fraud it is a quest to avoid the normal consequences of the statute which may result in grave injustice that the Court as occasion demands have to look behind or pierce the corporate veil.”
What then is fraud or what in law can amount to fraud? In law, fraud has simply been defined as an advantage gained by unfair means; a false representation of fact made knowingly, or without belief in its truth, or recklessly, not caring whether it is true or false. Fraud also means an intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right. It is also a false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives another so he shall act upon it to his legal injury, Jowitt’s Dictionary of English Law, Vol. 1, 2nd Edition, p. 827; Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Edition, p. 660.
— C.C. Nweze, JSC. APC v. Sheriff (2023) – SC/CV/1689/2022
He is bound by his bond, notwithstanding that the transaction is not evidenced in writing. Generally, section 4 of the Statute of Frauds requires that a transaction dealing with interest in land should be by a note or memorandum in writing. On the application of the Statute of Frauds, the Full Court of Divisional Court of Nigeria refused to lay it down as a strict rule of law that land, the property of an illiterate native, cannot be disposed of by him without complying with statute. See Bintu Alake and Ashafa Lawal v. Awawu 11 NLR 39,40 and Ashabi Okoleji v. M.A. Okupe 15 NLR 28. The parties to the instant appeal, as can be garnered from the record of proceedings are illiterates and on those authorities, the fact that the transaction is not in writing is not prejudicial.
— Salami, JCA. Manya v Idris (2000) – CA/K/29/97
The well laid down position of the law is that Courts do not rewrite contact for the parties where the terms of the contract are clear. In the absence of fraud, duress and undue influence, misrepresentation, the parties are bound by their contract. It is only parties to a contract that can sue and be sued on it.
– Rhodes-Vivour JSC. Alade v. Alic (2010)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry