Judiciary-Poetry-Logo
JPoetry

A PERSON WHO CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE UNDER A CONTRACT CAN SUE

Dictum

There is authority for the proposition that a person who can take advantage of a contract can sue on it, even if no consideration has moved from him: See Smith and Snipes Hall Farm v. River Douglas Catchment Board (1949) 2 K.B. 500, p.517; Drive Yourself Hire Co. (London) Ltd. V. Strutt (1954)1 Q.B. 250, pp. 271-275.

– Nnaemeka-Agu, JSC. Adejumo v. Ayantegbe (1989)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

COURT WILL NOT REWRITE LEASE AGREEMENT FOR PARTIES

In doing so, the court should bear in mind that it has a responsibility not to re-write the Lease Agreement for the parties but simply to give effect to their intention as may be deduced from the language employed by them.

— Achike, JSC. Unilife v. Adeshigbin (2001) 4 NWLR (Pt.704) 609

Was this dictum helpful?

PARTY IS BOUND BY WHAT HIS COUNSEL DOES – APPARENT AUTHORITY

In the instant case there is no averment that the authority of plaintiff’s Counsel to conduct the case on his behalf was withdrawn at any stage or limited by any general or specific instruction. Counsel to plaintiff therefore had throughout the conduct of the case general and apparent authority to conduct the case of the plaintiff in his discretion within his professional skill and in the best interest of the plaintiff. The consent of Counsel in the negotiation for settlement of the dispute out of court was with the consent of plaintiff. There was no averment that Counsel and the defendants were not ad idem, both in the terms of agreement to settle out of court and in entering the consent judgment in court. Plaintiff was therefore bound by whatever results from such negotiations.

– Karibi-Whyte, JSC. Afegbai v. A.G Edo State (2001)

Was this dictum helpful?

WHEN PARTIES ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT, ISSUE IS JOINED

From the above it is clear that the parties are not agreed on what happened in ward 9, Sabagreia. They have therefore, joined issues on their pleadings. So, what is the legal evidence adduced on both sides in proof of the facts as each party asserted them?

— Nsofor, JCA. Ugo v Indiamaowei (1999) – CA/PH/EP/97/99

Was this dictum helpful?

CLIENT’S CASE MAY DEPEND ON THE QUALITY OF THE BRIEF

Counsel will do well to remember that the fate of his client’s case may well depend on the persuasive quality of his brief. The Brief is defined in Order 6, Rule 5 of the 1985 Rules as “a succinct statement of his argument in the appeal.” A mere statement of the argument is contrary to the intendment of the rule and therefore not enough.

– Nnaemeka-Agu, JSC. Adejumo v. Ayantegbe (1989)

Was this dictum helpful?

DISTINCTION PROPER, DESIRABLE, NECESSARY PARTIES

The locus classicus on the often vexed issue of distinction between ‘proper parties’ ‘desirable parties’ and ‘necessary parties’ is the evergreen case of Green v. Green (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 61) 480 at 493 or (1987) 18 NSCC (Pt. 2) 1115. Wherein the supreme court per Oputa JSC (now of blessed memory) held that:- “This now leads one to the consideration of the difference between ‘proper parties’, ‘desirable parties’ and ‘necessary parties.’ Proper parties are those who ought not interested in the plaintiff claim, are made parties for some good reasons e.g where an action is brought to rescind a contract, any person is a proper party to it who was active or concurring in the matters which gave the plaintiff the right to rescind. Desirable parties are those who have an interest or who may be affected by the result. Necessary parties are those who are not only interested in the subject matter of the proceedings but also who in their absence, the proceedings could not be fairly dealt with. In other words, the question to be settled in the action between the existing parties settled unless they are parties to the action instituted by the plaintiff.”

Was this dictum helpful?

DIRECTING PERSONAL ATTENDANCE OF APPELLANT INFRINGES LIBERTY

The order of the Court directing the personal attendance of the appellants is an interference with their liberty as provided under Section 35 of the Constitution 1999 (as amended) when there is no law or rules of Court expressly authorizing the infringement.

– Chima Centus Nweze, J.S.C. Independent National Electoral Commission & Anor v. Ejike Oguebego & Ors (2017)

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.