Judiciary-Poetry-Logo
JPoetry

WHEN A DOCUMENT WILL SATISFY THE DESCRIPTION OF A NOTE OF MEMORANDUM

Dictum

In Adeniran v. Olagunju (supra) @ p. 169, this Court per Amaizu JCA., had pronounced emphatically on what a memorandum of sale of land should contain inter alia thus: “A document that will satisfy the description of a note or memorandum within the meaning of the statutory provision must contain the following details: 1. Name of the parties or enough description of the parties; 2. The ample description of the subject matter of the contract 3. The consideration of the alleged contract and 4. The document must contain the signature of the party be charged or that of his agent or a representative duly authorized by him.”

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

READING TWO DOCUMENTS TO GET SUFFICIENT MEMORANDUM

Long v. Millar (1879) 4 CPD 450, said Russel, J., in Stokes v. Whicher (1920) 1 Ch 411, 418, comes to this; that, if you can spell out of the document a reference in it to some other transaction, you are at liberty to give evidence as to what that other transaction is, and, if that other transaction contains all the terms in writing, then you get a sufficient memorandum within the statute by reading the two together.’

Was this dictum helpful?

DETAILS OF A SATISFACTORY NOTE OR MEMORANDUM FOR SALE OF LAND

I have mentioned earlier that the law requires the evidence of a transaction in a sale of land to be in a note or a memorandum. It is necessary to mention also that no special form is prescribed for the note or memorandum. However from the authority of decided cases particularly from the decision in Hamilton v. Kofi Mensah (1937) 3 WACA 224 a document that will satisfy the description of a note or memorandum within the meaning of the statutory provision must contain the following details – (1) names of the parties or enough description of the parties. (2) the ample description of the subject matter of the contract. (3) the consideration for the alleged contract; and (4) the document must contain the signature of the party to be charged or that of his agent or a representative duly authorised by him.

– Amaizu, J.C.A. Adeniran v. Olagunju (2001)

Was this dictum helpful?

READING TOGETHER TO MAKE A MEMORANDUM

For our part we think that with the passing of the years the courts in England have been developing a much more liberal approach to the connecting link between 2 documents so as to enable, with the aid of parol evidence a memorandum to be spelt out that would satisfy Section 4 of the Statute of Frauds. Freeman v. Freeman (1891) 7 TLR. 431 and Pearce v. Gardner (1897) 1 QB 688 are but two examples of where reference was permitted by parol evidence to connect an envelope with the document inside it to fulfil a requirement of Section 4 of the Statute of Frauds that the name of the plaintiff be shown.

– Lewis JSC. Ali Safe v. Northern States Marketing Board (1972)

Was this dictum helpful?