STOP SEEING INTRUSIVE ADS, & HAVE PREMIUM FEATURES? Stop seeing intrusive ads and have a smoother reading experience, once you sign up on Judicial Poetry. Sign up now!

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE DISTINGUISHED FROM DAMAGES

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

To sue for specific performance is to assume that a contract is still subsisting and therefore to insist that it should be performed. That will mean that the plaintiff will not want it repudiated unless for any other reason the court was unable to aid him to enforce specific performance of it. He may then fall back for remedy at common law for damages. Specific performance is a discretionary remedy. This does not mean that it will be granted or withheld arbitrarily; the discretion is a judicial discretion and is exercised on well settled principles. It means that in an action for the specific performance of a contract of the class usually enforced, the court may take into account circumstances which could not be taken into account in an action for damages for breach of contract, such as the conduct of the plaintiff, or the hardship which an order for specific performance will inflict on the defendant.

– Ba’Aba JCA. Enejo v. Nasir (2006)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

damages, specific performance

THERE MUST BE PART PERFORMANCE TO WARRANT SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE

On the issue of whether the appellant established sufficient acts of part performance to support and order for specific performance, it is the view of the court below that there had been no part performance to warrant a specific performance. I have myself considered all the evidence led before the court but can find no reason to fault this finding. At all events, whether or not part performance was established by the appellant in this case cannot now be regarded as any matter of great moment. This is because of my finding that there can be no specific performance of an agreement for a lease such as Exhibit A when the parties had not reached a consensus ad idem on vital issues such as the commencement date. The covenant, rent and mode of determination of the lease among others.

– Iguh JSC. Nlewedim v. Uduma (1995)

Was this dictum helpful?

AWARD OF DAMAGES IS DUTY OF TRIAL COURT – WHERE SUCH WILL BE INTERFERED IN

I have to commence my reasoning in this issue by laying emphasis on the notorious fact that the award of damages is essentially the duty of a trial court and will not be interfered with except unless certain circumstances exist:- a. Where the trial court acted under a misapprehension of facts or law b. where it failed to take into account relevant matter c. Where the amount awarded is too low or too high d. where failure to interfere would amount to injustice.

– Adekeye JSC. Harka v. Keazor (2011) – SC.262/2005

Was this dictum helpful?

WHAT IS SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE?

What then is specific performance? It is the rendering as nearly as practicable of a promised performance through a judgment or decrees; a court ordered remedy that requires precise fulfilment of a legal or contractual obligation when monetary damages are inappropriate or inadequate as when the sale of real estate or a rare article is involved. In essence the remedy of specific performance enforces the execution of a contract according to its terms. (Black’s Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition page 1528).

— J.A. Fabiyi, JSC. BFI v. Bureau PE (2012) – SC.12/2008

Was this dictum helpful?

NATURE OF SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND WHEN IT WILL BE GRANTED

The appellant, with the above position as depicted, desires to have specific performance of the agreement between it and the 1st respondent ordered by the court in its favour. Specific performance has been defined in Black’s Law Dictionary Ninth Edition at page 1529 as ‘the rendering, as nearly as practicable, of a promised performance through a judgment or decree; a court ordered remedy that requires precise fulfilment of a legal or contractual obligation when monetary damages are inappropriate or inadequate, as when sale of real estate or a rare article is involved. Specific performance is an equitable remedy that lies within the court’s discretion to award whenever the common law remedy is insufficient.’ In making an order for specific performance, the court must exercise its discretion judicially and judiciously as well. The Judge has to be discreet and balance the interest of both sides properly in his bid to do justice to the contending parties. See: (University of Lagos v. Olaniyan (1985) 16 NSCC (Pt. 1) 98, 113; Eronini v. Iheuko (1989) 2 NSCC (Pt.1) 503, 513; (1980) 3 SC (Pt.1) 30.

— Fabiyi, JSC. Best Ltd. v. Blackwood Hodge (2011) – SC

Was this dictum helpful?

EQUITABLE MORTGAGE TO CREATE A LEGAL MORTGAGE CAN SUE IN SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE

The equitable mortgage by agreement to create a legal mortgage, therefore, entitles the equitable mortgagee to something more than a mere right to payment out of the property or premises mortgaged; under the general principles, his remedies correspond as nearly as possible with those of the legal mortgagee. Because equity regards that as done which ought to be done the equitable mortgagee, by agreement to create a legal mortgage, can enforce the execution of a legal mortgage by suing in equity for specific performance; if successful he obtains a legal term of years and can then pursue all the statutory remedies open to a legal mortgagee.

– Idigbe JSC. Ogundiani v. Araba (1978)

Was this dictum helpful?

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES IN BREACH OF CONTRACT

[A]s far back as 1854 in the case of Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) 9 Ex (Ch. 341, where at p. 354 of the Report, Alderson, B. expressed the law as follows: “Now we think the proper rule in such a case as the present is this: Where two parties have made a contract which one of them has broken, the damages which the other party ought to receive in respect of such a breach of contract should be such as may fairly and reasonably be considered either arising naturally, according to the usual course of things, from such breach of contract itself, or such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties, at the time they made the contract, as the probable result of the breach of it.”

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.