THE IDEA BEHIND AGENCY RELATIONSHIP

FIVE WAYS IN WHICH PRINCIPAL AND AGENT RELATIONSHIP MAY ARISE

Usually, the relationship of Principal and agent may arise in anyone of five ways, namely: – 1. By express appointment whether orally or by letter of appointment or, indeed, by a Power of Attorney, Under this heading. No formality, such as writing is required for the valid appointment of an agent except for instance, where the authority of the agent is to execute a deed on behalf of a principal. in which case, the agency itself must be created by deed. 2. By ratification of the agent’s acts by the principal. See for example Bird v. Brown (1850) 4 Exch 786, Firth v. Staines (1897) 2 QB. 70 etc. This mode of creation of agency is sometimes expressed in the maxim omnis ratihabitio retrotrahitur et mandato priori aequiparatur. 3. By virtue of the doctrine of estoppel. 4. By implication of law in the case of agency of necessity and 5. By presumption of law in the case of cohabitation.

— Iguh JSC. Vulcan Gases Limited V. Gesellschaft Fur Industries Gasverwertung A.G.(G.I.V.) ( SC.67/1995, 4th May 2001)

AGENT’S AUTHORITY ENDS THE MOMENT HIS PURPOSE IS SPENT

As a matter of law the authority of any agent appointed for a particular purpose is spent the moment he executes that purpose for which he was appointed.

— Nnaemeka-Agu, JSC. Ashibuogwu v AG Bendel State (1988) – SC.25/1986

WHAT IS AN AGENCY RELATIONSHIP

Okwejiminor v Gbakeji (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt.1079) 172 Mohammed JSC defined the concept of agency thus:- “Agency is the relationship which exists or arises where one person called the agent, has the authority or capacity to create legal relations by acting on behalf of another person called the principal, whereby the latter undertakes to be answerable for the lawful acts of the former provided it was done within the scope of the former’s authority, or ratified by the latter”.

WHERE DIRECTOR ENTER CONTRACT FOR COMPANY, IT IS COMPANY WHO IS LIABLE

I have no doubt in my mind at all that as Chairman/Director of the 2nd appellant, the 1st appellant was in the eyes of the law an agent of the company for which he acted and the general principles of the law of principal and agent would generally have applied. Thus where a director enters into a contact in the name of or purporting to bind the company, it is the company which is liable on it, not the director. The director is not personally liable unless it appears that he undertook personal liability. Even where a director contracts in his own name but really on behalf of the company, the other party to the contract can generally on discovering that the company is the real principal, sue the company as undisclosed principal on the contract.

— Kutigi, JSC. Yesufu v. Kupper Intl. (1996) – SC.302/1989

ACT OF FRAUD BINDS PRINCIPAL WHEN AGENT ACTS WITHIN SCOPE OF AUTHORITY

A principal, whether disclosed or otherwise is in position to plead all defences available to him, but in the case of fraud, where the Agent acts within the scope of his authority, actual or apparent, the act of fraud on the part of the agent binds the principal. The same goes for an act of undue influence, vis-a-vis the third party, brought to bear on the principal by the agent. The problem is one to be sorted out between the Principal and the Agent and not the third party.

— Eso, JSC. Ashibuogwu v AG Bendel State (1988) – SC.25/1986