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!

PLEADED OR NOT, COURT WILL NOT CLOSE ITS EYES TO ILLEGAL CONTRACT

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

The attitude of the Courts to the issue of apparent or ex-facie illegality is certainly well settled. When a contract is ex-facie illegal, whether the alleged illegality has been pleaded or not, the Court would not close its eyes against illegality, as it is the duty of every Court to refuse to enforce such a transaction. In other words once illegality has been brought to the attention of the Court, it must be considered and resolved. See Gedge v. Royal Exchange Assurance Corporation (1900) 2 Q.B. 214 at 220; Akagbue and Ors. v. Romaine (1982) 5 S.C. 133; Nasr v. Berini (Betrut-riyad (Nigeria) Bank Ltd. (1968) 1 All N.L.R. 274 and Sodipo v. Lemminkainen (1986) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 15) 220.

— Mohammed, JSC. Fasel v NPA (2009) – SC.88/2003

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

contract

CONTRACT OF SERVICE AT COMMON LAW VS IN STATUTORY FLAVOUR

It is important to recognise the distinction between a contract of personal service and a contract of service. There is also the distinction between a contract of service at common law, and a contract with statutory favour. Whereas at common law a contract of personal service is determinable by the master at will without cause a contract of service is determinable by the master on reasonable notice or on the notice stipulated in the contract of the parties. A strict compliance with the statutory requirements for determination is required in contracts re-enforced by Statute or created by statute.

— A.G. Karibe-Whyte, JSC. Olaniyan & Ors. v. University of Lagos (1985) – SC.53/1985

Was this dictum helpful?

MEANING OF THE TERM ‘CONTRACT’

A contract may be defined as a legally binding agreement between two or more persons by which rights are acquired by one party in return for acts or forbearances on the part of the other. In effect a contract is a bilateral affair which needs the ad idem of the parties, therefore where the parties are not ad idem, the court will find as a matter of law that an agreement or contract was not duly made between the parties. Odutola v. Papersack (Nigeria) Limited (2006) 18 NWLR Pt. 1012 pg.470. Olowofoyeku v. A-G. Oyo State (1990) 2 NWLR Pt. 132 pg. 369 Oreint Bank (Nigeria) Plc. v. Bilante International Limited (1997) 8 NWLR Pt. 515 pg. 37 Societe General Bank (Nigeria) v. Safa Steel and Chemical Manufacturing Limited (1998) 5 NWLR Pt. 548 pg. 168.

— Adekeye, JSC. Best Ltd. v. Blackwood Hodge (2011) – SC

Was this dictum helpful?

REPUDIATION OF CONTRACT CANNOT BE DONE BY ONE PARTY ALONE

Contracts are made by parties and the Court interprets same. Repudiation of contract cannot be done by one party, see ADENIYI VS GOVERNING COUNCIL OF YABA TECH (1993) LPELR-128(SC) held thus; “But repudiation by one party standing alone does not terminate the contract. It takes two to end it, by repudiation on the one side, and acceptance of the repudiation on the other.”

— Nimpar, JCA. Ekpo v GTB (2018) – CA/C/324/2013

Was this dictum helpful?

COURT CANNOT IMPOSE CONTRACT ON A PARTIES

The relationship between the parties in this case is well-scripted, known and appreciated by them. The Court cannot write or rewrite any agreement for the parties. The parties to any transaction usually have their positions which they bring to their table of negotiation. When they are done with their negotiations, they now have their terms well-crafted to govern the transaction they enter into. The parties and no other are responsible for their terms of engagement. No Court has the power to script or foist on the parties terms which are strange to their agreement. Parties are bound by the terms of their contract.

— S.J. Adah, JCA. Luck Guard v. Adariku (2022) – CA/A/1061/2020

Was this dictum helpful?

WHEN INTERPRETING A CONTRACTUAL DOCUMENT THE WHOLE DOCUMENT SHOULD BE TAKEN CONSIDERATION OF

I am in full support of the submission of appellant’s counsel that it was a misdirection for the lower court in consideration of whether the land, the subject matter in controversy, was bare land or included the structures thereon to have relied on only clauses 3 and 6 in the entire lease agreement to arrive at its conclusion. The learned Justices of the lower court were clearly in error because it is a fundamental rule of construction of instruments that its several clauses, must be interpreted harmoniously so that the various parts of the instrument are not brought in conflict to their natural meaning. Emphasising the same point, the learned authors of Halsbury’s Laws of England. Vo1.12, (4th ed.) para. 1469) stated tersely but pointedly: “The best construction of deeds is to make one part of the deed expound the other, and so make all the parts agree. Effect must, so far as possible, be given to every word and every clause.” The same principle was approved by this Court in Lamikoro Ojokolobo & Ors. v. Lapade Alamu & Anor. (1987) 7 SCNJ 98, (1987) 3 NWLR (pt.61) 339. Surely, a fragmentary interpretation of the various clause of the lease agreement without recourse to the entire Lease Agreement would do violence to the content in which the controversial terms “premises” and “land” were employed and therefore the ascertainment of the parties’ intention in relation to these two terms was bound to be distorted and erroneous and consequently unacceptable.

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

Was this dictum helpful?

TERMINATION OF CONTRACT OF SERVICE BRINGS TO AN END MASTER-SERVANT RELATIONSHIP

Chukuma v. Shell Petroleum Development Company (1993) 4 NWLR (Pt. 289) 512 at 560 where Karibi-Whyte JSC said: “In the ordinary case and following the common law principle,termination of a contract of service even if unlawful brings to an end the relationship of master and servant, employer and employee. This rule is based on the principle of the confidential relationship between master and servant which cannot continue in the absence of mutuality.”

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.