Judiciary-Poetry-Logo
JPoetry

ALLEGATION OF FRAUD NOT PARTICULARISED IS USELESS AND CANNOT SUCCEED

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Dictum

This is because in law, an allegation of fraud requires that the particulars of fraud be set out to confer any modicum of seriousness on such an allegation of fraud to warrant further enquiry into it at trial. In other words, unless and until an allegation of fraud is, expressly, made and supported by its particulars, it is a non-starter as it is well settled that a mere or bare or banal allegation of fraud, no matter how grave, is of no moment if it is not supported by the relevant particulars as required by law, Nammagi v. Akote [2021] 3 NWLR (pt. 1762) 170. An allegation of fraud that is merely generic, vague and lacking in the specific and particulars is in law a non-starter and useless, PDP v. INEC and Ors (2012) LPELR 9724 (SC) Nishizawa Ltd v. Jethwani (1984) 12 SC 234; UBA and Anor v. Alhaji Babangida Jargaba [2007] 11 NWLR (pt. 1045) 247.

— C.C. Nweze, JSC. APC v. Sheriff (2023) – SC/CV/1689/2022

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

COMPANY WILL NOT BE USE AS AN INSTRUMENT OF FRAUD

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)

Was this dictum helpful?

FRAUD LIFTS VEIL OF INCORPORATION

One of the occasions when the veil of incorporation will be lifted is when the Company is liable for fraud as in the instant case. – Galadima JSC. Alade v. Alic (2010)

Was this dictum helpful?

WHAT IS FRAUD?

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

Was this dictum helpful?

FRAUD MUST BE SPECIFICALLY PLEADED

United African Company Ltd. v. Taylor (1934) 2 WACA 67 at 71, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council said: “In the opinion of their Lordships there is no rule which is less subject to exception than the rule that charges of fraud and afortiori charges of criminal malversation or felony, against a defendant ought not to be made at the hearing of an action unless, in a case where there are pleadings, those charges have been definitely and clearly alleged so that the defendant comes into court prepared to meet them.”

Was this dictum helpful?

FRAUD VITIATES; FRAUD MUST BE PLEADED AND PROVED STRICTLY

In the Duchess of Kingston’s Case (1775-1802) All E. R. Rep. 623 at 629 De Grey C. J., held that: “…Fraud is an extrinsic, collateral act, which vitiates the most solemn proceedings of Courts of Justice. LORD COKE says, it avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal.” Again in Fabunmi vs. Agbe (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 2) 299, Obaseki, JSC held at page 319 paragraph “C” that: “…Fraud is a serious crime and in civil matters, the particulars must be pleaded and proved strictly.”

Was this dictum helpful?

WHERE FRAUD, COURT WOULD LIFT THE VEIL OF INCORPORATION

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.”

Was this dictum helpful?

Load More
No more related dictum to show.

Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry

Facebook Twitter Whatsapp Telegram

Humongouz Empire

© 2024

designed by Humongouz Ztudio. 

TO – 567 | UO – 1 | GO – 490 | BO – 76

External link(s)

BOOK: First 2-years as a Law Student: Experiences and Lessons.