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!

FRAUD VITIATES ALL TRANSACTIONS – CONTRACT IS VOIDABLE AT THE ELECTION OF THE PARTY DEFRAUDED

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Fraud vitiates even the most solemn of all transactions. In fact fraud vitiates everything even judgments and orders of the court. However, a contract or other transaction induced or tainted by fraud is not void but only voidable at the election of the party defrauded. See Western Bank of Scotland v. Addie (1867) L.R.Sc. & Div. 145. Until it is avoided the transaction is valid so that third parties without notice of the fraud may in the meantime acquire rights and interests in the matter which they may enforce against the party defrauded. See Oakes v. Torquand (1867) L.R. 2 H.L. 325,373; ReeseRiver Silver Mining Co. v. Smith (1869) L.R.4 H.L. 64; Carter and Kenderdine’s Contractual) 1 Ch. 776 and United Shoe Co. v. Brunei (1909) A.C. 330.

— Agbaje, JSC. Ugo v Obiekwe (1989) – SC.207/1985

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

fraud

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?

WHEN IS THERE A FRAUD – WHAT IS FRAUD

Turning now to the meaning of “fraud” in connection with representations, it is firmly settled that whenever a man makes a false statement which he does not actually and honestly believe to be true, that statement is, for purposes of civil liability, as fraudulent as if he had stated that which he did not know to be true, or knew or believed to be false. So, in Derry v. Peek (1889) 14 AC 337 HL at 374, Lord Herschell in the judgment of the House of Lords succinctly stated that fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made by the representor (1) knowing, or (2) without belief in its truth, or (3) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false the third case being but an instance of the second.

– Iguh, JSC. Afegbai v. A.G Edo State (2001)

Was this dictum helpful?

ALLEGATION OF FRAUD NOT PARTICULARISED IS USELESS AND CANNOT SUCCEED

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?

FRAUD IN CIVIL SUIT MUST BE SPECIFICALLY PLEADED

It is trite law that where fraud is alleged it must be specifically pleaded and the particulars of the fraud given in order to enable the party defending the allegation to understand the case he is facing and thereby prepare his defence.

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

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?

THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS WILL NOT BE USED AS AN ENGINE OF FRAUD FOR WANT OF WRITING

He is bound by his bond, notwithstanding that the transaction is not evidenced in writing. Generally, section 4 of the Statute of Frauds requires that a transaction dealing with interest in land should be by a note or memorandum in writing. On the application of the Statute of Frauds, the Full Court of Divisional Court of Nigeria refused to lay it down as a strict rule of law that land, the property of an illiterate native, cannot be disposed of by him without complying with statute. See Bintu Alake and Ashafa Lawal v. Awawu 11 NLR 39,40 and Ashabi Okoleji v. M.A. Okupe 15 NLR 28. The parties to the instant appeal, as can be garnered from the record of proceedings are illiterates and on those authorities, the fact that the transaction is not in writing is not prejudicial.

— Salami, JCA. Manya v Idris (2000) – CA/K/29/97

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.