dJetLawyer Casebook

www.djetlawyer.
com
Olanrewaju Olamide
www.djetlawyer.com
dJetLawyer’s Casebook
Written By
Olanrewaju Olamide
www.djetlawyer.com
Olanrewaju Olamide
www.djetlawyer.com
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 by Olanrewaju Olamide, www.djetlawyer.com

Qualified rights reserved.
This book may be distributed freely, by any electronic or
mechanical means, in print or online.
But no part of it may be altered, plagiarized, sold, loaned or

otherwise used for any other commercial purposes without the
express written permission of the author and copyright owner.
For more information and questions, contact

Olamide@djetlawyer.com
Olanrewaju Olamide
www.djetlawyer.com
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 7
Index of Cases ......................................................................................................................... 9
Law Of Contract ................................................................................................................... 16
Definition and Classification of Contract ...................................................................... 16
Offer..................................................................................................................................... 16
Acceptance.......................................................................................................................... 18
Consideration ..................................................................................................................... 20
The Intention to Enter Into Legal Relations................................................................... 23
Capacity to Contract ......................................................................................................... 24
Terms of a Contract ........................................................................................................... 25
Privity of Contract ............................................................................................................. 25
Mistake as a Vitiating Element Of A Contract .............................................................. 27
Misrepresentation as a Vitiating Element in the Law of Contract ............................. 31
Nigerian Constitutional Law ............................................................................................. 34
Supremacy of the Constitution........................................................................................ 34
Separation of Powers ........................................................................................................ 34
Judicial Review in the First Phase of Nigerian Military Rule ..................................... 35
Judicial Review in the Second Republic ......................................................................... 36
Judicial Review in the Second Phase of Nigerian Military Rule ................................ 36
Judicial Review In The Fourth Republic ........................................................................ 37
Nigerian Legal System ........................................................................................................ 40
Sources of Nigerian Law .................................................................................................. 40
The Interpretation of Statutes .......................................................................................... 40
The Nigerian Customary Courts ..................................................................................... 41
Nigerian Criminal Law ....................................................................................................... 42
General Introduction to Criminal Law .......................................................................... 42
The Distinction between Criminal and Civil Wrongs.................................................. 42
Historical Evolution Of Nigerian Criminal Law .......................................................... 43
Territorial Jurisdiction Of Criminal Law ....................................................................... 44
Elements of an Offence (Actus Reus and Mens Rea) ...................................................... 44
Parties to an Offence ......................................................................................................... 46
Olanrewaju Olamide
www.djetlawyer.com
Homicide ............................................................................................................................ 47
Causation ............................................................................................................................ 48
Manslaughter ..................................................................................................................... 49
Rape ..................................................................................................................................... 50
Inchoate Offences/Attempt ............................................................................................. 50
Conspiracy .......................................................................................................................... 51
The Offence of Theft/Stealing ......................................................................................... 52
The Offence of Receiving Stolen Property ..................................................................... 53
House Breaking And Burglary ........................................................................................ 54
Robbery and Armed Robbery ......................................................................................... 55
Treason and Treasonable Felony .................................................................................... 56
Sedition ............................................................................................................................... 56
General Defences to Criminal Liability .......................................................................... 56
The Law of Torts .................................................................................................................. 59
Comparison between Torts and Other Areas of Law .................................................. 59
Damage and Liability in Tort .......................................................................................... 61
The Rule of Reasonable Foreseeability ........................................................................... 62
Trespass To Persons .......................................................................................................... 64
Trespass to Land ................................................................................................................ 68
Trespass to Land ................................................................................................................ 69
Trespass to Chattel ............................................................................................................ 70
The Tort of Nuisance ........................................................................................................ 71
Strict Liability: The Rule In Rylands Vs. Fletcher ......................................................... 72
Strict Liability: Liability For Animals ............................................................................. 75
Introduction to the Tort Of Defamation......................................................................... 77
Libel and Slander ............................................................................................................... 77
Elements of the Tort of Defamation................................................................................ 78
Other Types of Defamation ............................................................................................. 79
Defences to Defamation.................................................................................................... 80
Malicious Prosecution....................................................................................................... 81
Vicarious Liability ............................................................................................................. 81
Negligence .......................................................................................................................... 81
Sales of Goods ...................................................................................................................... 81
Olanrewaju Olamide
www.djetlawyer.com
General Overview of the Sale of Goods ......................................................................... 81

Sale by Description, Fitness for Purpose and Sale by Sample .................................... 83
Transfer of Property and Risk ......................................................................................... 83
Rules of Delivery ............................................................................................................... 84
Cheque as a Means of Payment....................................................................................... 86
The Law of Hire Purchase .................................................................................................. 88
Hire Purchase in Nigeria .................................................................................................. 88
Obligations of the Parties in a Contract of Hire Purchase ........................................... 89
Features of a Hire Purchase Contract ............................................................................. 89
Formalities of a Higher Purchase Agreement ............................................................... 90
Excluded Terms in a Hire Purchase Agreement........................................................... 91
Implied Terms in a Hire Purchase Agreement ............................................................. 91
Ownership and Transfer of Title in a Contract of Hire Purchase .............................. 92
The Hirer’s Right to Determine a Contract of Hire Purchase ..................................... 93
Olanrewaju Olamide
www.djetlawyer.com
Introduction
This casebook contains cases relevant to different areas of law. I sourced these cases
from www.djetlawyer.com. They are the cases on the different areas of law available
on the website. This means that I got the cases in this casebook from the cases in the
different posts on the website. In essence, this casebook is a repository of the
numerous cases available on the individual posts on the site.
Over the years, as the website grows, I would add new cases and existing subscribers
to my email list would get an updated version.
You can navigate this casebook by the areas of law located in the Table of Content.
Alternatively, if there is a specific case you are looking for; the Index of Cases would
serve as a useful guide in locating the case you want.
I do hope that this casebook turns out to be very useful for you. If you have any
comments or feedback regarding the casebook, you can easily reach me at
Olamide@djetlawyer.com.
Olanrewaju Olamide
Olanrewaju Olamide
www.djetlawyer.com
Olanrewaju Olamide
www.djetlawyer.com
Index of Cases
Amadi vs. Pool House Group &
A Nigerian Pools Co............................ 12
Amoo vs the State ................................ 34
Abdul Yusuf vs. Nigeria Tobacco
Amos vs. Shell BP Nigeria Ltd ......... 57
Company ...........................................18
Amusa & Anor vs. Bentworth Finance
Abiola vs. Ijoma ............................58, 63
Nig Ltd .............................................. 75
Abraham Adesanya vs President of
Anaeze vs. Anyaso ............................... 13
Nigeria & Anor .................................30
Anderson vs. Gorrie ........................... 45
Abraham vs. Chief Amodu Tijani
Animashawun vs. CFAO ................... 76
Oluwa ................................................17
Anoka vs. SCOA Warri ...................... 75
Adams vs. Lindsell .................................8
Armory vs. Delamirie ......................... 56
Adegbenro vs Akintola ......................27
Ashby vs. White .................................. 49
Adelabari vs. Nigeria Motors ltd .....76
Associated Distributors Ltd vs. Hall
Ademoye vs. State ...............................73
............................................................ 80
Adigun vs. AG Oyo State ..................50
Astley Industrial Trust Limited vs.
Afolalu vs. The State ..........................45
Miller ................................................. 79
African Press Ltd vs. R .......................43
Attorney General Anambra vs
AG Abia & 35 Ors vs. AG Federation
Nwobodo ........................................... 30
.............................................................22
AG Bendel vs AG Federation ...........24
AG Lagos vs. AG Federation ............21 B
Agoaka vs. Ejiofor ...............................64
Bagot vs. Chapman ............................. 19
Akanni & Ors vs State ........................32
Bakare vs. Ishola ................................. 65
Akene vs. British American Insurance
Balarabe Musa vs. Hamza ................. 24
Co (Unreported 1972 .......................15
Balfour vs. Balfour .............................. 12
Akenzua II, Oba of Benin vs. Benin
Balogun vs. Alakija ...................... 55, 56
Provisional Council.........................10
Bashaya vs State ................................... 33
Akerele vs. Inspector General of
Bassey Akpan Idn vs The State ......... 38
Police .................................................28
Beck vs. Smith ..................................... 27
Akinremi vs. Mobolaji Johnson .......23
Behrens vs. Bertram Mills Circus .... 61
Akintola vs. Anyiam ...........................65
Bell & anor vs. Lever Brothers Ltd .. 16
Akosa vs. Commissioner of Police ..42
Bellew vs. Cement Co Ltd ................. 59
Akoshile vs. Ogidan .....................68, 69
Benson vs West African Pilot Ltd .... 65
Alfotrin vs. Attorney General of The
Bentworth Finance Ltd vs. Salami ... 76
Federation ...........................................5
Bentworth Finance Nig Ltd vs. DC
Allied Bank Nigeria Ltd vs.
Bank Transport Ltd......................... 75
Akubueze..........................................74
Berliet Nigeria Ltd vs. Francis ............. 5
Amadi Thomas vs. Thomas Aplin &
Bernstein vs. Skyviews Ltd ......... 55, 56
Co Ltd ................................................68
Bettini vs. Gye ...................................... 13
Olanrewaju Olamide
www.djetlawyer.com
Bird vs. Jones........................................53 Couchman vs Hill ............................... 68

Bishop Gate Finance Corporation vs. Council of University of Ibadan vs.
Transport Brakers Ltd ....................79 Adamolekun .............................. 23, 28
Box vs. Jubb ..........................................61 Couturier vs. Hastie ............................ 16
Bradbury vs. Morgan .............................6 Coward vs. Motor Insurers Bureau... 12
Bradford Corporation vs. Pickles .....48 Coward vs. Wellington ...................... 64
British Motor Trade Association vs. Cox vs. Burbridge................................ 62
Salvador (1949) Ch. 556 ..................15 Cresswell vs. Sirl ................................. 56
Bucknor Maclean vs Inlaks Nig Ltd Cundy vs. Lindsay .............................. 17
[1980] ..................................................27 Curtis vs. Betts ..................................... 47
Burckle vs. Holmes .............................62
Butterworth vs. Kingsway Motor &
Ors ......................................................79
D
Byrne vs. Dean .....................................64 Dafe vs Tsewinor ................................ 66
Dalumo vs. The Sketch Publishing
C Co Ltd ................................................ 66
D'Andrea vs Woods ............................ 41
Campbell Discount Co Ltd vs. Gall.78 Dapialong vs Dariye........................... 26
Campbell vs. Paddington Daryani vs. Njoku ............................... 62
Corporation ......................................58 Definition of Contract............................ 4
Candler vs. Crane, Christmas & Co .20 Derry vs. Peek ...................................... 21
Carlill vs Carbolic smoke ball Co ....27 Dick vs. US.............................................. 8
Carlill vs Carbolic Smokeball Co ......5 Doherty vs. Balewa ............................. 22
Cassidy vs. Daily Mirror Newspaper Dokun Ajayi Labiyi vs. Alhaji
Ltd ......................................................66 Mustapha Moberuagba Anretiola25
Centrovincial Estate Plc vs. Merchant Doughty vs. Turner Manufacturing
Investors Assurance Company Ltd Co Ltd ................................................ 51
.............................................................17 DPP vs. Oby ......................................... 43
Chabasaya vs. Awasi ............................9 Dr Thomas Bonham vs. College of
Chanter vs. Hopkins ............................13 Physicians ......................................... 22
Chapple vs. Cooper ..............................13 Draper vs. Hodder .............................. 63
Chief Enyi Abaribe v. The Speaker, Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co vs.
Abia State House of Assembly and Selfridge Ltd .................................... 14
Ors ......................................................25 Dunn vs. Birmingham Canal Co ...... 60
Christie vs. Davey ...............................59
Classification of Contract ......................4
Cockcroft vs. Smith .............................53
E
Collins vs. State ...................................41 Egbuna vs. Amalgamated Press of
Collins vs. Wilcock .......................51, 52 Nig. Ltd ............................................. 63
Coonden Engineering Co Ltd vs. Eguare vs. Shell BP petrol
Stanford.............................................80 Development Company of Nigeria .. 9
Cooper vs. Phibbs ...............................16 Ekpeyong vs Umana ........................... 26
Corcoran vs. Aderton ..........................39 Entick vs. Carrington.................... 55, 56
Olanrewaju Olamide
www.djetlawyer.com
Entores vs. Miles Far East Co ..............8 Household Fire insurance Co vs. Grant
EO Lakanmi vs. AG of the West ......23 .............................................................. 8
Errington vs. Errington .........................6 Howard E Perry and Co Ltd vs.
Ewo Akang vs The State .....................36 British Railway Board .................... 57
Hudson vs. Robert .............................. 61
F Hughes vs. Lord Advocate ................ 50

Hughes vs. Metropolitan Railway Co
F vs. West Berkshire Health ............................................................ 11
Authority...........................................52 Hulton and Co vs. Jones .................... 66
Felthouse vs. Bindley.............................6 Hyam vs DPP (1975) AC ..................... 32
Fitch vs. Snedaker ..................................7
I
Foakes vs. Beer .....................................10
Fouldes vs. Willoughby .....................57 Ibeabu vs. Uba ..................................... 65
Idika vs State ....................................... 34
G Idiok vs The State ................................ 33
Idowu vs State ..................................... 32
Gaddam vs R ........................................44 Igbajume vs. Bentworth Finance Ltd
Gallie vs. Lee ........................................19 ............................................................ 77
Galloway vs. Galloway ......................16 Ige vs. Taylor Woodrow Nig Ltd ..... 58
Gani Fawehinmi vs Akilu & Anor ....29 Inakoju vs Adeleke............................. 26
Gbadamosi vs. Mbadiwe ......................9 Inakoju vs. Adeleke............................ 21
General George Innih vs. Ferado Agro Incar Motors Nigeria Ltd vs. Elias Bus
Consortiums Ltd ................................7 Transport Ltd ................................... 76
Giles vs. Walker ..................................60 Inspector General of Police vs. ANPP
Glansville vs. Sutton ..........................62 and Ors .............................................. 22
Governor of Lagos State vs. Emeka Iromantu vs State ................................ 43
Ojukwu .............................................25 Iyaro vs State ....................................... 34
Gubba vs Gwandu Native Authority30
J
H Jegede vs The State .............................. 37
Hammer and Barrow vs. Coca-Cola.72 Jimoh vs. Olawoye .............................. 25
Hargreaves vs. Bretherton .................48 John Nwachuckwu vs. The State ..... 42
Hartog vs. Colin & Shields................17 Jorden vs. Money............................ 10, 11
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd vs. Heller & Joscelyne vs. Nissen ........................... 18
Partners Ltd ......................................20 Joseph Ohai vs. Samuel Akpoemonye
Helby vs. Mathews .......................74, 78 ............................................................ 28
High Tree Case ......................................11
Hirat Balogun vs National Bank of
Nigeria ...............................................74
K
Holwell Securities Ltd vs. Hughes ......8 Kanawa vs. Maikaset.......................... 28
Hopkins vs Tanquery .........................68 Kariuki vs. East African Industries
Ltd & Anor ....................................... 54
Olanrewaju Olamide
www.djetlawyer.com
Karsales Harrow Ltd vs. Wallis ........78 Mapleflock Co Ltd vs. Universal
Kelly vs. Metropolitan Railway Co .46 Furniture Product Ltd..................... 71
Kelson vs. Imperial Tobacco Ltd55, 56 Marube vs. Nyamuro.......................... 52
Kennedy vs. Thomassen ........................6 Merring vs. Graham White Aviation
Kleinworth Benson Ltd vs. Lincoln Company Ltd ................................... 53
City Council .....................................16 Merrit vs. Merrit .................................. 12
Microbeads AG vs. Vinhurst Road
L Markings Ltd ................................... 78
Miles vs. New Zealand Alford Estate
L.A Cardoso vs. The Executors of the Co ......................................................... 9
Late J.A Doherty ................................9 Military Governor of Ondo State vs.
L’estrange vs. Graucobs .....................18 Victor Adegoke Adewunmi .......... 24
Labinjoh vs Abake ..............................27 Mogul Steamship Co vs. McGregor
Labinjoh vs. Abake ..............................13 GOW and Co .................................... 48
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Co Moore vs. Nnado ................................. 59
vs. McNicols .....................................39 Morgan vs. Wallis ............................... 47
Lawal vs. GB Olivant Nigeria Ltd ...12 Mountford vs. Scott............................... 6
Lawrence vs. MPC ...............................39 Musa Kaya vs. State ............................ 45
Lee vs. Bayes 1856 18 CB 599 at p. 601 Mustapha and Co vs. NCEI ............... 71
.............................................................69 Mutual Aid Society vs. Akerele ....... 65
Lewis vs. Averay..................................69
Lewis vs. Clay ......................................19
Liesbosch Dredger vs. Edison
N
Steamship .........................................49 Nads Imperial Pharmacy vs.
Livingstone vs. Ministry of Defence Siemgluse ......................................... 72
.............................................................52 Newstead vs. London Express
Lloyds vs. Harper ................................15 Newspaper ....................................... 49
Lord Strathcona Steamship co vs. Nichols vs. Marshland ....................... 60
Dominion Coal Co ..........................14 Njuguna vs. Republic ........................ 42
Lumley vs. Gye ....................................15 Nocton vs. Ashburton ........................ 20
North Central Wagon and Finance Co
M Ltd vs. Graham ................................ 57

Nthenda vs. Alade .............................. 64
Mai vs. STB Ltd ...................................73 Nwankwa vs. Ajaegbu ....................... 46
Maijamaa vs State (1964) vol 1 ANLR
.............................................................34
Maizabo vs Sokoto Native Authority30
O
Malone vs. Laskey ...............................58 Odi vs Osafile ...................................... 27
Manchester Diocesan council vs. Oforlete vs. The State .......................... 35
Commercial and General Ogbu vs R ............................................. 44
Investments Ltd..................................8 Ogwu vs. Leventis Motors Ltd ......... 75
Manton vs. Brockle Bank...................63 Ojiko vs. IGP ....................................... 39
Manton vs. Brocklebank ....................62 Okotcha vs Olumese .......................... 66
Olanrewaju Olamide
www.djetlawyer.com
Olubunmi Okogie vs. AG Lagos State R vs Doughty ........................................ 36

.............................................................24 R vs Easom ........................................... 40
Olujomoye vs R ...................................40 R vs Michael ......................................... 33
Onasanya vs. Emmanuel....................55 R vs Miller (1983) AC .......................... 31
Onwuchekwa vs. Onovo....................67 R vs Osoba ............................................ 31
Onwudiwe vs FRN .............................39 R vs Parsonneur ................................... 32
Orient Bank vs. Bilante Intl Ltd .........8 R vs Poulton ......................................... 34
Oshinye vs. COP .................................39 R vs Taylor ........................................... 29
Otitoju vs. Governor of Ondo State .12 R vs West .............................................. 34
R vs White............................................. 38
P R vs. Adebowale.................................. 41
R vs. Bekun .......................................... 42
Patrick Njovens vs State (1973) R vs. Boyle ............................................ 41
NMLR ................................................31 R vs. Chandler ..................................... 41
Patrick Okhae vs Governor of Bendel R vs. Clarkson ....................................... 34
State & Ors .......................................28 R vs. Governor of Brockhill Prison
Payne vs. Cave .......................................5 Exparte Evans ................................... 54
Pearks, Gunsten & Tee Ltd vs. Ward R vs. Hancock ...................................... 40
.............................................................47 R vs. Hardie .......................................... 43
Pearson vs. Rose and Young Ltd ......68 R vs. Ireland ......................................... 51
Perry vs. Kendricks Transport Ltd ...61 R vs. Iyakwe ......................................... 41
Pharmaceutical Society of Great R vs. Khan ............................................. 38
Britain vs. Boot cash Chemist .........5 R vs. Kohn ............................................ 40
Pickard vs. Innes ..................................13 R vs. Nwaoke........................................ 36
Pinnel's Case .........................................10 R vs. Osakwe........................................ 40
Play vs. Poland & Morris ...................19 R vs. Reed .............................................. 38
Ponting vs. Noakes .............................60 R vs. Rose.............................................. 41
Poole vs Smith Car Sale .....................70 R vs. Smith ........................................... 42
PZ & Co Ltd vs. Gusau & Kantonma R vs. St George .................................... 51
.............................................................12 R vs. Vega ............................................. 44
R vs. Whybrow ..................................... 38
Q Ramsgate Victoria
Hotel vs. Montifiore .......................... 6
Quo Vadis Hotel Ltd vs. Nigeria Rands vs. McNeill ............................... 62
Marine Services Ltd ........................46 Re McArdle ............................................. 9
Re Polemis ............................................ 49
R Read vs. Lyons ..................................... 60
Reese Silver Mining Co vs. Smith ... 19
R vs Agunwa ........................................43 Regent OGH vs. Francessco of Jenmy
R vs Anderson .......................................38 Ltd ...................................................... 71
R vs Bangaza ........................................27 Rickards vs. Lothians ......................... 60
R vs Blaue .............................................35 Rose vs. Miles ...................................... 57
R vs Bryce..............................................34 Ruben vs. Faire Bros Co Ltd ............. 72
Olanrewaju Olamide
www.djetlawyer.com
Rylands vs. Fletcher ..........48, 59, 60, 61 Ubahar vs State ................................... 34

Ubani vs The State .............................. 32
S Udekwu vs Abosi ................................ 78
Ukot vs State ........................................ 44
Sambo vs. The State.............................37 Umudje vs. Shell BP Petroleum
SCOA Zaria vs. Okon .........................77 Development Co of Nigeria Ltd... 61
Scott vs. Shepherd .........................47, 52 Underwood........................................... 70
Shehu vs State ......................................45 United Dominions Corporation (Nig)
Sherras vs De Rutzen .........................44 Ltd vs. Ladipo .................................. 77
Simms vs. Leigh Rugby Football Upahar vs The State ............................ 37
Club ...................................................52 Uwaifo vs. AG Bendel State ............. 23
Singh vs Fasi Okotie (1894) AC .........31 Uzoahia vs. Atu ................................... 63
Singleton vs. Williamson ..................62
Sketch Publishing Co Ltd vs. Ajagbe
Mokeferi ...........................................64
V
Smith vs. Selwyn .................................46 Vanderpart vs. Mayfair Hotel Co Ltd
Smith vs. Stone ....................................62 ............................................................ 58
Solle vs. Butcher ..................................17 Varley vs Whipp ................................. 69
State vs Appoh .....................................44 Veritas Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Citi
State vs. Onwemunlo .........................41 Trust Investment Ltd ...................... 46
Stevens vs. Myers ................................51 Vizetelly vs. Mudies’s Select
Stewart vs. Casey .................................10 Library’s Limited ............................ 67
Sule vs Norwich Fire Insurance CO 15
Sule vs. Aromire ..................................20
Sule vs. The State .................................38
W
Sunday Okoro vs AG Western Nigeria Wagon Mound's Case......................... 50
.............................................................31 Wardar's Import and Export Ltd vs W.
Norwood & Sons ............................. 70
T Whitley vs. Hilt ................................... 79

Wilkinson vs. Downton ............... 47, 54
Tamplin vs. James ...............................18 Wilkinson vs. Downtown ................. 54
The Service Press Ltd vs. Azikiwe ...65 Williams vs. UAC Ltd ........................ 76
Thomas vs. National Union of Mine Wilson vs. Waddell ............................. 60
Workers (South Wales Area) .........51 Winn vs. Bull .......................................... 7
Thoroughood’s case ............................18 Winterbottom vs. Derby .................... 58
Tillet vs. Ward......................................62 Wollerton Ltd vs. Constain Ltd .. 55, 56
Tinn vs. Hoffman & Co .......................7
Tulk vs. Moxhay ..................................14
Turberville vs. Savage ........................51
Y
Yesufu vs. Gbadamosi ....................... 64
U Yusuf & Anor vs. Oyetunde & anor 77
UBA vs. Tejumola and Sons ...............7
Olanrewaju Olamide
www.djetlawyer.com
Z
Zik Enterprise Ltd vs. Awolowo ......66
Olanrewaju Olamide
Law of Contract
Definition and Classification of Contract
Definition of Contract
 Blackwood Hodge vs. Best Nigeria Ltd1: In this case the court per Adekeye
JSC defined a contract as a legally binding agreement between two or more
persons by which rights are acquired by one party in return for acts or
forbearance on the part of the other.
Classification of Contract
 Xenos vs Wickham2: In this case, it was held that it isn’t necessary for a deed
to be delivered in order for a contract to be regarded as formal. All that is
needed is the evidence that the executor of the deed made it clear that he
wanted to transfer the property in question to the recipient.
 Rann vs Hughes3: In this case, it was held that all simple contracts must have
consideration.
 Carlill vs Carbolic Smokeball Co4: In this case, the defendant company
promised a financial reward to anybody who made use of their product and
still contacted the flu. The plaintiff made use of the product but she still got the
flu. The defendant attempted to escape liability by contending that it is not
possible to make a contract with the whole world. The court held that although
it is not possible to contract with the whole world, there would be a unilateral
contract between parties when one party fulfils an act for which the other party
has promised a reward.
Offer
What is an Offer?
 Alfotrin vs. Attorney General of The Federation: In this case, the Federal
Government of Nigeria employed the services of a company to supply cement.
The foreign company then employed the services of the appellant to transfer it
from Spain to Nigeria. On getting to Nigeria the port was jam packed. The
1 (2011) 5 NWLR (pt 1239)

2 (1867) LR 2 HL 296.
3 (1778) 7 T R 350
4 [1893] Q.B. 256 (C.A.)
Federal Government then requested that the appellant should redirect to a port
in Ghana.
Subsequently, the appellant requested for demurrage costs. The respondent
denied liability. The Supreme Court decided that the action of the respondent
in requesting for redirection was the offer while the redirection of the appellant
was the acceptance. Thus it was held that there was a valid contract.
Invitation to Treat
 Berliet Nigeria Ltd vs. Francis5: In this case, the appellant sent a notice to the
respondent (who was a worker in the appellant company) that following
company policy, workers were entitled to buy shares in the company. The
respondent applied for shares and was given a receipt. The company later
didn't award the shares to him. He sued and was successful in the High Court.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal held the first act of notifying the defendant was
an invitation treat. Thus, the subsequent application for shares was an offer
which could be accepted or rejected by the appellant.
 Payne vs. Cave6: In this case, it was held that in a sale by auction, offers are
accepted upon the banging of the gavel.
 Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain vs. Boot cash Chemist 7: In this case,
it was decided that goods displayed in a store are invitation to treat. The offer
comes into play when the buyer takes the goods to the cashier which could then
be accepted or rejected by the cashier.
Revocation of Offer
 Mountford vs. Scott8: In this case, the defendant granted the plaintiff an option
to pay for the purchase of a property within a period of 1 month. Also, a
consideration of £1 was paid in order for the offer to be kept open.
Subsequently, the defendant purported to revoke the offer, it was held that
since he has received consideration for keeping the offer open, he had to keep
it open.
 Errington vs. Errington9: In this case, a father promised his daughter and her
husband that they would be granted ownership of a house upon his death if
they can repay the mortgage he borrowed on it. His daughter and her husband
had already commenced the repayment of the debt when his wife, who was his
legal heir, revoked the offer. It was held that the offer can't be revoked once
acceptance is already proved to have already started before revocation.
5 (1987) 2 NWLR pt 58
6 (1789) 3 Term Rep 148.
7 (1953) 1 QB 401
8 (1975) 1 All ER 198 CA
9 (1950) 1 Kb 290
 Ramsgate Victoria Hotel vs. Montifiore10: In this case, it was held that the
period of time from June to November is reasonable for an offer to lapse in the
case of purchase of shares.
 Bradbury vs. Morgan11: In this case, the court held that a contract of guarantee
still subsisted in spite of the death of the guarantor. This is due to the fact that
it can still be carried out after the death of the guarantor.
 Kennedy vs. Thomassen12: In this case, it was held that a contract for annuities
no longer subsisted because the offeree died before accepting it.
Acceptance
Invalid Acceptance
 Felthouse vs. Bindley13: In this case, the plaintiff made an offer to his nephew
and he stated that if he did not receive a reply he would assume that the offer
has been accepted. His nephew intended to sell him the horse however, it was
mistakenly auctioned. The plaintiff subsequently sued the auctioneer for
conversion. The court held that there was no valid contract between the
plaintiff and his nephew due to the fact that the acceptance had no external
manifestation, thus, it was invalid.
 General George Innih vs. Ferado Agro Consortiums Ltd14: In this case, the
appellant offered to sell some properties to the respondent provided
acceptance was within three days. The respondent replied that it 'accepted' the
offer but it asked for an extension of two weeks. The appellant immediately
sold the assets to a third party. The respondent thus sued for breach of contract.
The respondent won in the High Court. On appeal, the Court of Appeal ruled
that the introduction of a new term was a counter offer. This was irrespective
of the fact that the respondent said it accepted the offer. The counter offer
terminated the initial offer and was a new offer which the appellant could
either accept or reject.
 Winn vs. Bull15: In this case, it was decided that whenever an acceptance is
made subject to contract, this meant that the acceptance is not complete until
the drawing up of a formal contract.
10 (1866) LRL 1 Exch. 109

11 (1862) 1 H & C 249
12 (1962) 1 Ch. 426
13 (1862) 7 LT 835.
14 (1990) 5 NWLR pt 152
15 (1877) 7 Ch 829
 UBA vs. Tejumola and Sons16: In this case, the appellant requested for a lease
from the respondent. The request was however headed "subject to contract".
Subsequently, there was an agreement between both parties. However, the
appellant later resigned from the agreement. The respondent then sued for
breach of contract.
The respondent won in the High Court and the Court of appeal. However, the
Supreme Court overturned the judgement. The court held that the presence of
the phrase "Subject to contract" meant that subject to the drawing up of a formal
contract, the parties are still in the negotiation stage. However, Nnaemeka Agu
JSC added that if all the basic terms to the contract have been agreed upon, the
insertion of ambiguous words was just mere cosmetic surplussage.
 Tinn vs. Hoffman & Co17: In this case, there were two simultaneous offers by
both parties which had identical terms. The offers crossed at the post.
Subsequently, one of the parties contended that there was a valid contract. The
court held that this was an impossibility due to the absence of consensus ad
idem between both parties.
 Fitch vs. Snedaker18: In this case, it was held that in a situation of a person
performing an act which entitles him to a reward in a unilateral contract
without knowledge of the reward, such act can't be said to be a valid
acceptance. This is due to the fact that someone can't accept something which
he has no knowledge of.
Communication of Acceptance
 Entores vs. Miles Far East Co19: In this case, Lord Denning held that an
acceptance validly takes place where it is received not where it is posted. Thus,
if an acceptance is posted in Nigeria it becomes valid when it is received in
America. Therefore acceptance is valid at the moment of acceptance.
 Manchester Diocesan council vs. Commercial and General Investments
Ltd20: In this English case, it was decided in a situation in which the method of
acceptance is prescribed, unless that particular method is mandatory, any other
method of acceptance that is faster would be valid.
 Orient Bank vs. Bilante Intl Ltd21: In this Nigerian case, it was held that
whenever a method of acceptance is prescribed, any other method used would
be invalid. This was according to the provisions of S.109 (1) of the Contract
Law of Anambra state.
16 (1988) 2 NWLR pt 79
17 (1873) 29 LT 271
18 38 NY 248 (1868)
19 (1955) 2 QB 327 CA
20 (1969) 3 All ER 1593
21 (1997) 8 NWLR pt 515
Acceptance by Post
 Adams vs. Lindsell: This case is the locus classicus for acceptance by post. In
this case, it was decided that where acceptance is by post, it becomes valid
when it is posted and not when it is received.
 Household Fire insurance Co vs. Grant22: In this case, the defendant’s offer to
buy shares in the plaintiff company was accepted by post. However, this letter
of acceptance wasn't received by the defendant. When the company got
liquidated, the defendant was held liable for some sum of money by virtue of
his position as a shareholder. He resisted paying the money and was thus sued
to court. The court, in applying the decision in Adams vs. Lindsell held that the
letter of acceptance was valid even though it didn't get to the defendant. Thus,
the defendant was held liable.
 Holwell Securities Ltd vs. Hughes23: In this case, the court held that if a term
of the contract expressly states that the acceptance by post must be received by
the offeror, if it isn’t received, the acceptance would be invalid.
Revocation of Acceptance
 Dick vs. US24: In this case, there was an acceptance by post that was revoked
by telegram. The telegram in this case got to the offeror before the acceptance
by post. It was held that due to this, the acceptance was successfully revoked.
Consideration
What is Consideration?
 Chabasaya vs. Awasi25: In this case, the court per Fabiyi JSC defined
consideration as "the inducement to a contract, a basic, necessary element for
the existence of a valid contract that is legally binding on the parties".
Consideration Must Move from the Promisee
 L.A Cardoso vs. The Executors of the Late J.A Doherty26: In this case, the
plaintiff was promised by J.A Doherty that he would be allowed to live in a
house for as long as possible. However, upon his death, the executors of his
estate rescinded this promise. He filed for an injunction restraining them from
evicting him. It was held that he furnished no consideration for the promise.
22 (1879) 4 Ex D 216
23 (1974) 1 WLR 155
24 F Supp. 326 (1949)
25 (2010) NWLR Pt 1201
26 (1934) 4 WACA 78
 Miles vs. New Zealand Alford Estate Co27: In this case, a company had bought
land and was dissatisfied with the purchase. The vendor promised to
compensate the company for this. It was alleged that the company's
consideration was its forbearance to institute proceedings to rescind the
contract. A judgement by the majority of judges at the court of appeal held that
there was no consideration because there was no proof of the intention to
institute a suit.
 Gbadamosi vs. Mbadiwe28: In this case, the plaintiff sued the defendant in his
own (plaintiff's) name on a debt that the defendant owed the party of the
former. It was decided by the court that the plaintiff had furnished no
consideration for the transaction. It was his party that had furnished the
consideration, not him.
 Eguare vs. Shell BP petrol Development Company of Nigeria29: In this case,
the plaintiff, after selling his land to the defendant, struck a deal that all minor
contracts that has to do with that land will be awarded to him. The defendant
did not keep to this promise. He sued for breach of contract. It was decided that
since he had already sold the land to the defendant, his second request was a
new one and he furnished no consideration.
The Rule against Past Consideration
 Re McArdle30: In this case, a testator left a house jointly to his children. The
mother of one of the children subsequently went ahead to refurbish the house.
However, she incurred a lot of expenses in carrying out this. The children made
a written agreement with her to reward her with a certain amount of money.
Eventually, they couldn't come through on their promise. In court it was
decided that the children owed her no obligations. This is because her
consideration (refurbishing the house) was past.
 Akenzua II, Oba of Benin vs. Benin Provisional Council31: In this case, the
defendant council asked the plaintiff to use his influence to prevail on the
African Timber and Plywood Company to give them some Forest areas. The
plaintiff successfully did this. He then asked the defendant to give some part
of the Forest area for his exclusive exploitation. The defendant readily agreed
to this. Later, they went back on their promise. The court decided in favour of
the defendant because it held that the consideration of the plaintiff was past.
 Stewart vs. Casey: In this case, the owners of a certain patent right on transit
by steamer and land contacted the defendant, who had been the practical
27 (1886) 32 Ch. D. 267

28 (1964) 2 All NLR 19
29 (Unreported)
30 (1951) Ch. 669
31 (1959) WRNLR 1
manager for working out the patents, and promised to give him one third share
in the patent in order to reward his services in working out the patent.
Subsequently, the successors in title to the original owners sued that the
defendant did not furnish any consideration and that if he did, it was past. The
court ruled otherwise it maintained that this was a business transaction in
which both parties knew that there was to be a reward for services rendered.
Equitable Estoppel
 Pinnel's Case32: In this case, the court of common pleas held that one cannot
use a lesser sum to satisfy the debt of a larger sum. The court however added
that if a new item of payment is added, it could serve as consideration for the
foregoing of the initial debt. The extra material could range from materials like
a horse, a gift, a robe, a change of venue, a change of time and so on.
 Foakes vs. Beer33: In this case, Dr Foakes was the judgement debtor of Mrs Beer.
They agreed to the payment of the debt (minus interest) by instalments over a
long period of time. When the debt had been completely paid, Mrs Beer also
requested for the interest on the judgement debt.
It was held in court that Dr Foakes had to pay the interest on the judgement
debt regardless of the fact that Mrs Beer initially agreed to collect just the debt.
This was based on the fact that there was no further consideration paid for the
foregoing of the interest of the judgement debt.
 Jorden vs. Money34: In this case, Mr Money was promised by Mrs Jorden that
the debt she owed him would be forfeited. This subsequently prompted Mr
Money to sue in the court of chancery that he was free from the debt based on
the promise by Mrs Jorden. He hinged his case on the doctrine of estoppel.
The court held that estoppel could not apply to this case since the case had to
do with statement of intention. The court held that estoppel applied only to
representations relating to fact. However, Lord St Leonards dissented and was
of the opinion that estoppel also applies to a representation of intention.
 Hughes vs. Metropolitan Railway Co35: In this case, the court applied the
dissenting decision of Lord St Leonards in Jorden vs. Money. The tenant was
given a six months period to repair the premises. There was a condition in the
lease which provided that if upon the completion of six months from the date
of the notice, the premises had not been renovated, the lease would be forfeited.
Subsequently, there were negotiations between the parties for the purchase of
the rest of the lease. The negotiations however failed after two months. Six
32 (1602) 5 Co. Rep. 117a

33 (1884) 9 App. Cas. 605
34 (1854) 5 HLC 185
35 (1887) 2 A.C 439
months after the notice for repairing the premises, the landlord brought an
action for forfeiture against the tenant.
The House of Lords held that the tenant had a relief in equity. The court was of
the opinion that failure to carry out the repairs in time was due to the
negotiations that failed. Due to the fact that this principle was a creation of
equity, it came to be known as equitable estoppel.
 High Tree Case36: In this case, the plaintiff leased a block of flats to the
defendants in 1937. However, due to the outbreak of the Second World War,
the plaintiff agreed to collect half of the lease price. After the war was over, the
plaintiff not only reverted to the old price but also requested for the arrears that
remained due to the half payments made during the war.
Lord Denning ruled that in this situation, the plaintiff was estopped from
enforcing its strict legal rights as it would be inequitable to enforce such. He
defined equitable estoppel as a situation in which a promissor would be
estopped from enforcing his full legal rights if he had made a previous promise
limiting this right. This is more so if the promisor knew that the promise is
likely to be acted upon and it is acted upon by the promissee.
The Intention to Enter Into Legal

Relations
 Balfour vs. Balfour37: In this case, the court held that an agreement where the
husband promised to pay his wife a monthly allowance of £30 had no intention
to create legal relations and thus couldn't be enforceable by the court.
 Merrit vs. Merrit38: In this case, it was held that a contract where the husband
promised to pay a monthly allowance contained an intention to create legal
relations and was binding. This was due to the fact that the contract was made
when both parties where judicially separated.
 Amadi vs. Pool House Group & Nigerian Pools Co39: In this case, it was
decided that the defendant was under no legal liability towards the plaintiff.
This was regardless of the fact that the plaintiff allegedly won some money.
This is due to the fact that in the pool agreement, there was an honour clause
that excluded litigation and legal enforceability.
36 (1947) KB 130.
37 (1919) 2 KB 571
38 (1970) 1 WLR 1211
39 (1966) 2 ANLR 254
 Coward vs. Motor Insurers Bureau40: In this case, the court held that in
intermediate situations such as car runs, the court should be reluctant to impute
the intention to create legal relations. The court would only enforce it where it
is expressly stated in the agreement that there is an intention to create legal
relations.
Capacity to Contract
Capacity of Illiterates
 PZ & Co Ltd vs. Gusau & Kantonma41: In this case, the court defined an
illiterate as a person who is not literate in the language in which the contract is
conducted.
 Otitoju vs. Governor of Ondo State42: In this case, the Supreme Court defined
an illiterate as someone who cannot read or write in the language in which the
contract was executed.
 Lawal vs. GB Olivant Nigeria Ltd43: In this case, the Western Court of Appeal
held that even if the provisions of the act are not followed, if the illiterate knows
what the document entails, the contract is valid. However, this was jettisoned
by the Supreme Court on appeal. The Supreme Court held that the provisions
of the law should be strictly followed.
 Anaeze vs. Anyaso44: In this later case, the Supreme Court ruled that mere
technical non-compliance would not avail an illiterate the opportunity to
defraud others. In order for the contract to be nullified, he has to prove that he
didn't understand the document.
The Capacity of Infants
 Labinjoh vs. Abake45: In this case, the court held that the applicable age of
majority was 21. This necessitated the voiding of the contract for sales of goods
entered into with the infant in question who was aged 18 at the time.
 Chapple vs. Cooper46: In this case, necessaries were defined as those goods that
are important to the survival of an individual. They include: food, shelter and
clothing. Also, luxury goods could be regarded as a necessary for an infant
depending on the societal status of such infant.
40 (1963) 1 QB 259
41 (1961) NRNLR 1
42 (1994) 4 NWLR pt 340
43 (1970) 2 ALR
44 (1993) 5 NWLR pt 291
45 (1924) 5 NLR 33
46 (1844) 13 M & W 253
Terms of a Contract
 Chanter vs. Hopkins47: In this case, Lord Abingeris stated that if a person asks
to be supplied beans but is instead supplied peas, the contract has not been
performed. The supply of peas instead of beans is a breach of a fundamental
term.
 Pickard vs. Innes48: In this case, the defendant offered the plaintiff a job on the
condition that he collects permission from his present employers. The plaintiff
didn't get the permission and was thus not offered the job.
He sued for breach of contract. The court decided that the request for
permission was a condition precedent which wasn't fulfilled. Thus, the inability
to fulfil such condition meant that the contract could be repudiated.
 Bettini vs. Gye49: in this case, the plaintiff, a singer in the defendant's opera
promised to come 6 days before the opera. He however came two days before
the opera and his contract was repudiated. In court, it was held that the contract
could not be repudiated because the breach was a breach of warranty not
condition. Thus, the defendant was only liable to damages.
Privity of Contract
What is Privity of Contract?
 Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co vs. Selfridge Ltd50: In this case, the plaintiff had
an agreement with a dealer that he shouldn't sell their product below a certain
price. They also made the dealer promise to extract this same promise from
other people they sold to. The dealer subsequently sold to the defendant and
made him promise not to sell below the ascertained price. They even agreed
that for every good sold below the ascertained price, 5 pounds would be paid
to the plaintiff. However, the defendant sold below the price and also didn't
pay the 5 pounds. Thus, the plaintiff sued to enforce the agreement between
the dealer and the defendant. The court held that the even though the
defendant breached the agreement between it and the dealer, the plaintiff was
not a party to the contract and it did not furnish consideration for the promise.
Hence, there was no privity of contract between them.
47 (1834) 4 M & W 399

48 Gold Coast F. Ct. (1919) 2
49 (1876) 1 QBD 183
50 (1915) AC 79
Exceptions to Privity of Contract
 Tulk vs. Moxhay51: In this case, the plaintiff owned some plots of land and sold
the garden in the centre to a certain Elms. He made him agree not to build on
it but preserve it in its existing condition. After a series of conveyances, the land
was sold to the defendant. The defendant, although knowing about the
restrictive covenant, proposed to build on it. Thus, the plaintiff sought an
injunction against the building of the purposed structure. The action succeed
on the ground that the defendant had prior knowledge of the restrictive
covenant.
In order for a restrictive covenant to be enforced, it has to be to the knowledge
of the defendant. Also, the original vendor needs to have other land in the
vicinity which would benefit from the restrictive covenant.
 Lord Strathcona Steamship co vs. Dominion Coal Co52: In this case, a ship was
chartered to the respondent for a period of ten years with another option of
eight years after the first period. The ownership for the ship changed hands
until it got to the appellant who was aware of the charter. However, the
appellant attempted to interfere with the charter rights of the respondent. The
respondent then sought an injunction restraining the appellant. The injunction
was granted in the court of first instance. On appeal to the Privy Council, the
injunction was upheld. This was regardless of the fact that the former owner
wasn’t a party to the initial contract between the hirer and the former owner.
 Lumley vs. Gye53: In this case, the plaintiff employed an opera singer. The
defendant knowingly induced the singer to refuse to perform. The plaintiff thus
sued the defe ndant for tortious interference. The defendant was held
to be liable by the court even though he wasn’t a party to the contract between
the plaintiff and the singer.
 British Motor Trade Association vs. Salvador (1949) Ch. 556: In this case, A
bought a car and covenanted with B that he would not resell it in a period of
one year without first offering it to B. Subsequently C bought the car from A
within a year's notice. B sued C for interference with contractual rights and the
court held in his favour.
 Akene vs. British American Insurance Co (Unreported 1972)54: In this case,
the plaintiff was named as the beneficiary in the insurance contract of the
deceased, his father. The insurance company subsequently failed to pay the full
amount of the award. In court, it argued that the plaintiff wasn't privy to the
contract. The court held applied the trust concept and held that the plaintiff
51 (1848) 2 Ch. 774

52 (1924) AC 128
53 (1853) 2 E & B. 216
54 (Unreported) high Court of Mid-Western State Suit No UHC/37/171
was in the position of a beneficiary with the deceased as testator and the insurer
in the position of a trustee. Thus, judgement was entered in the plaintiff's
favour.
 Sule vs Norwich Fire Insurance CO55: In this case, the plaintiff was a driver
for the Action Group. The Action group purchased an insurance contract with
the defendant which insured the plaintiff – as the driver – and the Action group
– as the owner of the car. The plaintiff was involved in an accident against a
third party. This person sued the plaintiff and was awarded damages against
the plaintiff. The plaintiff then sought to rely on the insurance contract entered
into by the Action Group with the defendant insurance company.
The defendant insurance company sought to avoid liability on the ground that
it wasn’t the plaintiff who entered into the agreement with them. The court held
that the plaintiff could claim indemnity from the defendant insurance company
since he was a beneficiary of the contract of insurance.
 Lloyds vs. Harper56: In this case, A guaranteed to the plaintiff that he would
indemnify anybody that suffered loss as a result of transacting with B, an
underwriter. Subsequently, the executors of A’s estate didn’t want to
implement the guarantee that was made to the plaintiff. It was held that the
plaintiff was in the position of a trustee to those that suffered loss in transacting
with the underwriter. Thus, he could sue against A's estate to enforce the trust.
Mistake as a Vitiating Element Of A

Contract
What is Mistake?
 Bell & anor vs. Lever Brothers Ltd57: In this case, Lord Atkin stated that “If
mistake operates at all, it operates so as to negate or in some cases, nullify
consent”.
 Kleinworth Benson Ltd vs. Lincoln City Council58: In this case, the plaintiff
bank paid money to the defendant city authorities under a transaction that it
believed was legal. Subsequently, it was discovered that this transaction was
one that had been made void by law. Thus, the plaintiff sued to recover its
money. The House of Lords was unanimous in holding that the age long
distinction between mistake of law and mistake of fact was no longer relevant.
55 (Unreported) High Court of Western State Suit No W/74/70 1971.

56 (1880) 16 Ch. D. 290
57 All ER 51
58 1998 4 All ER
If there is a mistake, whether it be of fact or of law it would operate to make the
contract void. Thus, in the instant case, the remedy of restitution was allowed
in order for the plaintiff to recover its funds.
Common Mistake
 Couturier vs. Hastie59: In this case, both parties entered into a contract for the
sale of a cargo of corn. Unknown to both parties, during the voyage the corn
got fermented and it was subsequently sold off by the captain of the ship. When
the seller sued for the contract price, the court held that this was a case of res
extincta (destruction of subject matter), as a result, the contract was voided for
common mistake.
 Galloway vs. Galloway: In this case, both parties entered into a marriage
settlement contract. Subsequently, it was discovered that their marriage was
void ab initio (it never existed in the eyes of the law). The court held that since
there was never a marriage, there can’t be a marriage settlement.
 Cooper vs. Phibbs: In this case, X agreed to take lease of a fishery from Y,
unknown to both parties, the fishery already belonged to X. It was held that in
this situation, the agreement of lease was void for mistake.
 Abraham vs. Chief Amodu Tijani Oluwa: In this case, the defendant attached
a writ of fi.fa to a land that he believed belonged to his judgment debtor. The
plaintiff wasn’t sure of his title and as a result, he bought the land.
Subsequently, he confirmed that the land was really his own. He thus sought a
refund of the price he paid. The court held that the initial sale was void due to
the fact that there was a mistake as to title.
Unilateral Mistake
 Cundy vs. Lindsay60: In this case, the respondent was defrauded into selling
goods on credit to an impostor who was representing another person that he
intended to deal with. Unfortunately, before the vice was discovered, the
impostor sold the goods to a third party. When the owner discovered that he
had been duped, he brought an action to retrieve the goods from the third
party. The court held that due to the unilateral mistake, the property in the
goods had not yet passed to the impostor, hence he could not transfer same to
the third Party. Therefore, the goods were returned to the plaintiff.
 Hartog vs. Colin & Shields61: In this case, the defendant was a trader of animal
skins. He mistakenly sold the products at a price per pound instead of per
piece, this made the price of the products unduly cheap. The plaintiff, on seeing
this opportunity, readily accepted the contract. When the defendant discovered
59 (1853) 8 Exch. 40
60 (1878) 3 App Cas 459
61 [1939] 3 All ER 566
his error, he refused to supply the products. As a result, the plaintiff brought
an action to enforce the contract.
The court held that this was a case of unilateral mistake and a result, the
contract was not enforceable.
 Centrovincial Estate Plc vs. Merchant Investors Assurance Company Ltd62: In
this case, a landlord offered to renew his tenant’s lease at a rate of £65,000 per
annum instead of £126,000. The tenant, oblivious of this mistake, accepted the
contract. When the landlord discovered his error, he wanted to rescind the
contract. The court held that this was not a case of unilateral mistake since the
other party was not aware of this mistake. Hence the contract was enforceable.
Mistakes in Equity
 Solle vs. Butcher63: In this case, Lord Denning stated that in order for Equitable
remedies to be granted in a case of mistake, the following have to be met:
o Where the mistake is common or mutual, it must be of a fundamental
nature and neither flimsy nor minor.
o Where it is a unilateral mistake, it must have been induced by the other
party, or he had constructive knowledge of the mistake.
o It must be unequitable for the party seeking to enforce his strict rights
under the law to have the law enforced in his favour.
 Joscelyne vs. Nissen64: In this case, a father agreed to let his daughter take over
his car hire business on the condition that she would take care of certain
household expenses. However, due to a mistake, the written agreement did not
place these responsibilities on the daughter. The court ordered a rectification of
the agreement in order to make it reflect the true intention of the parties.
 Abdul Yusuf vs. Nigeria Tobacco Company65: In this case, the defendant made
a typographical error in drafting the contract of the plaintiff in transporting
some of its goods. Due to this mistake, the price to be paid was unduly high.
The defendant requested the plaintiff and other drivers to return their contracts
for correction. The plaintiff refused and sought to have the contract enforced.
The court refused to grant the equitable remedy of specific performance based
on the fact that it would be inequitable to do so since the plaintiff was trying to
exploit the defendant’s mistake.
 Tamplin vs. James: In this case, the defendant bid for and bought an inn
auctioned by the plaintiff on the belief that since the plaintiff owned an adjacent
garden he would also sell it with the inn. However, during the auction, the plan
of the inn to be sold was clearly displayed and it did not include the garden in
62 [1983] Com LR 158

63 [1950] 1 KB 671
64 [1970] 2 QB 86
65 (1974) NCLR. 236
question. The court held that in this situation, the terms were clear and
unambiguous. As a result, the contract had to be enforced.
Non Est Factum
 L’estrange vs. Graucobs66: In this case, the defendant sold a slot machine to the
plaintiff. In order to make the sale effective, the plaintiff had to sign a document
which excused the defendants from liability in case of default. The plaintiff,
who didn’t read the document before signing, was unaware of this and when
he purchased the machine it was discovered to be defective. The court held that
the plaintiff could not have the contract repudiated since he had already
appended his signature to the document.
 Thoroughood’s case67: In this case, Mr Thoroughood’s tenant, Mr William
Chicken, owed arrears of rent. Mr Thoroughood intended to free him from
liability and a document was created to that effect. The document that was
created however was one that transferred the property to Mr William Chicken.
Mr Thoroughood was an illiterate and he thus asked Mr Chicken what the
document entailed. Mr Chicken misrepresented to him that the document was
a document to cancel arrears of rent. Thus, Mr Thoroughood signed it.
Subsequently, Mr Chicken sold the property to an innocent third party. The
court held that the principle of non-est factum would apply here since
considering the fact that Mr Thoroughood was an illiterate and he made
enquiries as to what purpose the document was for. Thus, the deed of transfer
to Mr Chicken was void.
 Bagot vs. Chapman: In this case, the object intended was a power of attorney,
what was accomplished by the document was a mortgage of property. Thus, a
plea of non-est factum was allowed.
 Gallie vs. Lee: In this case, the object intended was disposition of property by
way of gift but the object accomplished was a disposition by way of sale. It was
held that the rule would not apply since both end results were similar.
 Play vs. Poland & Morris: In this case, the defendant signed a document
believing it to be in respect to a dissolution of partnership. In effect, the
document was one which placed liability on him to indemnify other partners
in case of loss. The court held that since he didn’t make attempt to read the
document or know its content, the plea of non est factum would not be
applicable.
 Lewis vs. Clay: In this case, the defendants signed as witnesses in a particular
deed by a third party. They couldn't see the full documents and when they
asked to see, they were told that they didn't need to see the full documents,
66 (1934) 2 KB 394
67 (1584) 2 Co. Rep 9a
only their signature was needed. What they were actually signing was a
promissory note to pay Lewis as sum of 11000 pounds. Their plea of non est
factum was successful because they were not negligent in the sense that they
made steps to be sure of what they signed although they were misled.
Misrepresentation as a Vitiating Element

in the Law of Contract
Fraudulent Misrepresentation
 Reese Silver Mining Co vs. Smith68: In this case, the directors of a company
issued out a prospectus stating the advantages of working a particular mine.
They did this without ascertaining the truth of their assertions. When it was
later discovered that their statements were untrue, they were held liable for
fraudulent misrepresentation.
 Sule vs. Aromire69: In this case, the defendant advertised certain premises for
sale. In order to prove the validity of his title, the defendant gave reference to
a lawsuit which purportedly declared him the owner. In reality, the lawsuit
was in respect of an adjoining property and the defendant was aware of this.
When the plaintiff bought the property, he discovered that it validly belonged
to third parties. The court held that this was a case of fraudulent
misrepresentation, thus the defendant was held liable.
Negligent Misrepresentation
 Nocton vs. Ashburton70: In this case, the plaintiff sued his solicitor because the
solicitor had given him improper advice regarding the security for a mortgage.
The solicitor did this because he stood to benefit from his client’s loss. The court
held in this case that the misrepresentation was a negligent one, and thus the
solicitor was held liable for the plaintiff’s loss.
 Candler vs. Crane, Christmas & Co71: In this case, Lord Denning in a
dissenting judgement stated that the people upon which liability would rest in
a case of negligent misrepresentation even though there was no fiduciary duty
to the representee include:
68 (1869} LR 4 HL 64
69 1951 20 NLR 20
70 1914 AC 932
71 1951 2 KB 164
…accountants, surveyors, valuers and analysts, whose profession and
occupation is to examine books of account and other things and to make
reports on which other people, other than their clients, rely in the
ordinary course of business.
Lord Denning further classified the class of persons, apart from their direct
clients, to which a duty was held as:
o Any third person to whom they themselves (the maker of the statement)
show the statement.
o Any person to whom they know their employer is going to show the
accounts in order to induce them to invest some money or take some
other action.
 Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd vs. Heller & Partners Ltd72: This case affirmed the
dissenting decision of Lord Denning in Candler vs. Crane, Christmas and Co.
The plaintiff was an advertising agent to Easipower Ltd and wanted to find out
if Easipower Ltd was credit worthy. In order to find out, they asked their bank
– National Provincial – to help them investigate. In the course of investigation
National Provincial contacted Heller and Partners, the bankers for Easipower
Ltd, for confirmation. Heller & Partners stated “in confidence and without
liability on our part” that Easipower was credit worthy. As a result, the plaintiff
went into an advertising contract with Easipower Ltd and ended up losing
money. Thus, they sued Heller & Partners.
The court held all things being equal, that Heller & Partners was liable for
fraudulent misrepresentation. They were however let off the hook due to the
exclusion clause “without liability on our part” in their reply.
Innocent Misrepresentation
 Derry vs. Peek73: In this case, a company was statutorily incorporated by the
British Parliament to construct tramways by means of animal power (horses).
However, if the consent of the Board of Trade was obtained, they could make
use of steam power. The directors of the company believed that the Board of
Trade would approve their request since in the earlier processes to be followed,
they didn’t meet any objections. They represented this to the plaintiff, which
induced him to purchase shares in the company.
Subsequently, the Board of Trade didn’t give its assent and thus the company
had to be closed down. The plaintiff thus sued for fraudulent
misrepresentation. The court held that it would not be applicable in this case
because the representor honestly believed in what they represented. It could
72 1964 AC 465
73 1889 14 App Cas 337
also not be negligent because by following the due process and meeting no
objection, they had tried their best to ascertain the veracity of their assertions.
The defendants were thus held not liable for misrepresentation.
Nigerian Constitutional
Law
Supremacy of the Constitution
 AG Lagos vs. AG Federation: In this case, it was declared that the action of the
President in withholding the federal allocation to Lagos state was in contrast to
S.162 (5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic (1999), therefore it was
unconstitutional, null and void.
 Inakoju vs. Adeleke: In this case, some members of the Oyo State House of
Assembly purported to impeach the Governor of the state. However, they did
not follow the full provisions of S.188 of the constitution. Due to this, the
Supreme Court, through a leading Judgement by Tobi JSC declared their
actions unconstitutional, null and void.
 Inspector General of Police vs. ANPP and Ors74: In this case, the Court of
Appeal declared the provisions of the Public Order Act which provided that a
permit had to be gotten from the Governor in order for people to assemble in
public. This was contrary to the freedom of expression and association which
is contained in SS.39 & 40 of the 1999 constitution. Therefore, those provisions
of the Public Order act were declared unconstitutional, null and void to the
extent of their inconsistencies.
Separation of Powers
 AG Abia & 35 Ors vs. AG Federation: In this case the actions of the president
in amending the Allocation of Revenue Act 1990 was considered valid and
constitutional. This was due to the fact that the law in question was enacted
before 1999 and by the provisions of S. 315 of the 1999 Constitution, the
President has the right to amend such law.
 Doherty vs. Balewa: In this case, the court exercised its power of judicial
review by holding that S.3 (4) of the Commission and Tribunals of Inquiry Act
was contrary to constitutional provisions and as a result, was null and void.
74 (2007) NWLR PT 1066

 Dr Thomas Bonham vs. College of Physicians: This case was one of the first
to establish judicial review. In the case the college had already incarcerated the
plaintiff because they alleged that he practised medicine in London without a
licence. The plaintiff then sued for false imprisonment.
The college relied on its statute of incorporation which gave it the power to
administer medical practitioners in London. It also had the power to
incarcerate offenders and receive half of the money from the fine imposed on
each offender.
Justice Coke said that the defendant could not be plaintiff, prosecutor and judge
in its own cause. This was in contradiction to the natural law principle Nemo
Judex in Causa sua. Thus Justice Coke declared that if a statute is in conflict with
common right, reason and the common law it would be declared void.
Judicial Review in the First Phase of

Nigerian Military Rule
 Council of University of Ibadan vs. Adamolekun: In this case, there was an
appeal against a decision of the High Court. During this period, appeals from
the High Court went directly to the Supreme Court. While this appeal was
pending, an edict established the Western Region Court of Appeal. The
promulgation of this edict effectively prevented the Supreme Court from
hearing this present case before it. This was due to the fact that by establishing
the Court of Appeal, appeals could no longer go directly to the Supreme Court.
In order to deal with this issue, the Supreme Court had to interpret the
provision of S.6 of Decree no 1 of 196675 which provided:
“No question as to the validity of any decree, or edict should be entertained in
any court of law in Nigeria.”
The Supreme Court in interpreting this section held that it was not an ouster
clause against its jurisdiction. Rather the court interpreted that it only meant
that the court could not question the competence of the military authorities to
promulgate decrees and edicts.
 EO Lakanmi vs. AG of the West: In this case, the assets of some named persons
was forfeited by an edict which was subsequently ratified by Decree no 45 of
1968. In an uncompromising manner, the Supreme Court, taking recourse to its
earlier decision in Adamolekun’s case nullified the decree.
 Akinremi vs. Mobolaji Johnson: This case was an aftermath of the enactment
of Decree No 28 of 1970 which provided in S. 1 (2) that any court decision which
nullifies a military decree, either before or after the promulgation of Decree No
75 This was the decree that suspended the 1963 Republican Constitution.
28, would be null and void. As a result of this, the courts bowed to the
superiority of military legislation and in this present case, the court bowed to
ordinary statutory instruments.
Judicial Review in the Second Republic

 Uwaifo vs. AG Bendel State76: In this case, the property of the appellant was
seized by the Bendel State government due to Decree no 10 of 1977. The
appellant contested this in court. Despite the fact that the case was brought
before the Supreme Court during the operation of the 1979 constitution, the
court applied the provision of the decree which was in operation at the time the
cause of action arose.
 AG Bendel vs AG Federation: In this case, the National Assembly referred the
Allocation of Revenue Bill 1981 to the Joint Conference on Allocation. When the
conference reviewed it, the bill was sent to the President for assent. The court
held that this was unconstitutional as the only way a bill can be passed to the
President for assent is if it has been passed by both houses of the legislature.
Any other method would be unconstitutional, null and void.
 Balarabe Musa vs. Hamza77: In this case, the state legislature impeached a
governor although there were a series of irregularities. The court held that the
provisions of S. 170 (10) of the 1979 constitution – which ousted the court’s
power of judicial review in impeachment proceedings – was sacrosanct and
inviolable. Thus it could not look into the validity of impeachment proceedings.
 Olubunmi Okogie vs. AG Lagos State78: In this case, the issue in contention
concerned educational rights which were contained in Chapter II of the 1979
Constitution. The courts effectively excused itself from hearing this case since
its jurisdiction had already been effectively ousted from hearing such matters
by the provision of S. 6 (6) (c) of the 1979 Constitution.
Judicial Review in the Second Phase of

Nigerian Military Rule
 Military Governor of Ondo State vs. Victor Adegoke Adewunmi79: In this
case, the validity of the appointment of a chief was questioned in the High
76 (1982) NSCC @221

77 1982 3 NCLR 229
78 1981 1 NCLR 218 HC
79 1988 1 NSCC @ 113
Court. While this case was still pending in court, the Military Governor of Ondo
State enacted Edict No 11 of`1984 which ousted the court’s jurisdiction from
hearing chieftaincy matters. It also made it an offence for anyone to challenge
the validity of the appointment of a chief in the court of law. The issue for
contention was whether or not the court should succumb to the provisions of
the edict.
The court held that S. 6 and 236 of the 1979 Constitution80 were spared by
Decree No 1 (Constitution Suspension and Modification Decree) of 1984.
Thus, any ouster of the court’s jurisdiction by an edict would be in
contravention to the provisions of Decree No 1. As a result, the courts did not
succumb to the edict.
 Dokun Ajayi Labiyi vs. Alhaji Mustapha Moberuagba Anretiola81: In this
case, the court listed the hierarchy of laws in a military regime. The hierarchy
is listed below in descending order:
o Constitution (Suspension and Modification Decree) No 1 of 1984.
o Federal Military Decrees.
o Unsuspended parts of the 1979 Constitution.
o Laws made by the National Assembly before military takeover or
having effect as if so made.
o Edicts of state military governors
o Laws made by the state house of assembly before military takeover or
having effect as if so made.
 Governor of Lagos State vs. Emeka Ojukwu82: In this case, the respondent was
forcefully evicted from his premises by the Lagos state government. The court
held that the only means by which a person could be forcefully evicted from
his property was by an order of the court, if it is done through any other means,
it would be unconstitutional, null and void83.
Judicial Review In The Fourth Republic

 Chief Enyi Abaribe v. The Speaker, Abia State House of Assembly and Ors84:
In this case, the court in interpreting the provisions of S.188 (10) reiterated the
fact that a case cannot be brought before it concerning the affairs of legislature
in the process of impeachment. The court held that its jurisdiction was
80 These are the sections that relate to the jurisdiction of the court
81 1992 10 SCNJ part 1
82 1986 1 NSCC @304
83 See S. 44 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended
84 (2002) 14 NWLR (Pt. 738) 466 at 492.
effectively ousted. However, it should be noted that the issue concerning
whether the provisions of S.188 (1) - (9) were followed was not raised before
the court. Thus, the reason for the court declining jurisdiction.
 Jimoh vs. Olawoye85: In this case, the court had to interpret the provisions of
S.26(10) of the Local Government Law of Kwara State 1999 which is an ouster
clause similar in provision to S.188(10) & 143(10) of the 1999 Constitution but
in relation to a Local Government Chairman. The court held that the ouster
clause in S.26 (10) of the Kwara State Local Government Law will apply only
when the provisions of S.26 (1) - (9) which listed the procedure for removal
have been complied with.
However, the court was of the view that the provision of S.26 (10) of the said
law was null and void as it was in conflict with the provisions of S.4 (8) CFRN
1999 (as amended) which bars a legislature from ousting the court's
jurisdiction. Since the law was made by a State House of Assembly, it was thus
in conflict with the constitution and was also declared null and void.
 Inakoju vs Adeleke86: In this case, some members of the Oyo state House of
Assembly impeached the sitting governor but they didn’t follow the
procedures laid out by S. 188(1) – (9). In a leading judgement by Tobi JSC, the
court decided that the ouster clause in S.188 (10) will only be applied if the
provisions of S.188 (1)-(9) which outlines the procedure for removal of the
governor has been duly complied with. If the facts of the case show that the
provisions of the Constitution were flaunted, the court would wade in to
correct the anomaly.
 Dapialong vs Dariye87: In this case, a faction of the Plateau State House of
Assembly impeached the governor without following the process laid down in
S. 188 of the constitution. The court held that the impeachment was contrary to
constitutional provisions and as a result, was null and void.
 Ekpeyong vs Umana88: In this case, members of the Akwa Ibom State House of
Assembly impeached the Deputy Governor without following the provisions
of S. 188. When the case got to court, they contended that the court’s jurisdiction
was ousted by the provision of S. 188(10). The trial court held in their favour
and refused to hear the case. On appeal, the court of appeal held that the ouster
clause in S. 188(10) would only apply when the other provisions of S. 188 (1) –
85 (2003) 10 NWLR (Pt. 828) 307
86 (2007) 4 NWLR (pt.1025) 423.
87 8 NWLR 2007 PT 1036 289
88 (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 520) 1387 at 1397 paras. GH.

(9) have been duly followed. If their provisions are not regarded, the court can
wade in to correct the anomaly.
Nigerian Legal System
Sources of Nigerian Law
 Labinjoh vs Abake: In this case, the application of the Infant Relief Act was
rejected because there was already a local legislation that covered that area.
 Carlill vs Carbolic smoke ball Co: In this case, the court created an original
precedent which established unilateral contracts.
 Bucknor Maclean vs Inlaks Nig Ltd [1980]: In this case, the Supreme Court
departed from its decision in two previous cases: Shell BP vs. Jammal
Engineering Ltd and Owumi vs. Paterson Zochonis and Co Ltd due to the fact
that adherence to these precedents could lead to substantial injustice.
 Odi vs Osafile: In this case, the court reasoned that the law was made for man
and not man for the law. Also, man isn't infallible and so are his thoughts.
Therefore if it is pointed out that there has been a substantial error in a previous
decision, the court should have the wherewithal to correct that decision.
The Interpretation of Statutes

 R vs Bangaza: In this case, the Supreme Court was faced with the problem of
interpreting the provisions of S.319 (2) of the Criminal Code 1954. In the case,
the literal rule was applied to the extreme. This was due to the fact that the
Supreme Court interpreted the provision of the law to mean that age of liability
was the age of conviction and not the age of commission. Thus, the accused
who was charged for murder was given capital punishment even though the
crime was committed before he attained the age of majority.
 Adegbenro vs Akintola: In this case, the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council interpreted the provisions of S.33 (10) of the Western Region
Constitution literally. It provided that the Premier could remove the Governor
if it seemed to him that he no longer commanded the loyalty of majority of
house members. The Privy Council ruled that the way by which he comes to
this conclusion is only by what he determines. Even if it was in the form of a
dream or vision it would still be valid according to the provision of the
Constitution in question.
 Beck vs. Smith: This was the case that established the golden rule of statutory
interpretation. The court provided that the literal interpretation of a statute
should be used only to the extent that it would not produce absurdity or negate
from the intention of the legislature. If the literal interpretation of the statute
were to produce absurdity, then the intention of the legislature should be
applied in the interpretation of statutory provisions.
 Council of University of Ibadan vs. Adamolekun: In this case, the court made
use of the golden rule of statutory interpretation. The court had to interpret the
provision of S.3 (4) of the Constitution (Suspension and Modification Decree)
of 1966 which stated that where an edict is in conflict with a decree, the edict is
to become void to the extent of its inconsistency with the decree. However, in
S.6 it was provided that no question as to the validity of a decree or edict was
to be entertained in a court. The court ruled that it would lead to absurdity to
literally interpret the provision of S.6 due to the fact that if it did, how then
would it be able to enforce the provisions of S.3(4). Thus, the edict was held to
be voided by the provisions of S.3 (4).
 Akerele vs. Inspector General of Police: In this case, the court was faced with
the interpretation of the meaning of the word "accuse" in S.210 (b) of the
Criminal Code 1948. The court made use of the mischief rule of statutory
interpretation. It rejected the argument that the word meant swearing under
oath. He said that by going into a short history of that section, its intention was
to prohibit the practice of indiscriminate accusations of witchcraft and trial by
ordeal.
The Nigerian Customary Courts

 Patrick Okhae vs Governor of Bendel State & Ors89: In this case, the court held
inter alia that Customary Courts of Appeal do not have jurisdiction in criminal
cases.
 Joseph Ohai vs. Samuel Akpoemonye90: In this case, the court held inter alia
that questions bordering on interpretation of statutes are not in the jurisdiction
of customary courts of appeal.
 Kanawa vs. Maikaset91: In this case, the court declared the provision of S.17 (3)
Sokoto State Shariah law inconsistent with the provisions of S.277 (2) of the
Constitution because it gave the Sharia Court of Appeal extra jurisdiction apart
from Islamic personal law.
89 (1990) NWLR PT 144

90 Ohai v. Akpoemonye (1999) 1 NWLR (Pt.588) 521
91 (2007) NWLR PT 1042
Nigerian Criminal Law
General Introduction to Criminal Law
 R vs Taylor: In this case, the court defined crime as an act committed or omitted
in violation of public law either forbidding or commanding it.
The Distinction between Criminal and

Civil Wrongs
 Gani Fawehinmi vs Akilu & Anor92: In this case, the appellant had applied for
an order of mandamus against the DPP in order to indorse a certificate of
prosecution which would enable him to privately prosecute the murderers of
Dele Giwa.
The appellant, who was a legal representative to the deceased, had carried out
private investigations into the murder of Dele Giwa and as a result, he got some
evidence relating to the killers. This evidence was submitted, together with the
information, to the DPP. The DPP refused to prosecute on the basis that the
evidence was not cogent enough to warrant prosecution. He also failed to
indorse the certificate based on the information provided by the appellant. The
appellant thus applied for mandamus.
The trial court ruled against the appellant. At the court of appeal, his case was
also dismissed on the ground that he had no locus standi based on the provision
of S.6 (6)(b) of the 1979 Constitution and the case of Adesanya vs President of
Federal Republic of Nigeria93.
The appellant thus appealed to the Supreme Court which held inter alia that:
o The Criminal Code does not confer complaint in respect of murder on a
particular set of people. Anyone, who has sufficient information in
relation to the murder can bring it up to aid in the prosecution.
o The narrow confines to which 6(6) (b) have been limited have been
broadened by the Criminal Procedure Laws, the Criminal Code and the
Constitution itself.
Thus, by the above provisions, any private citizen can choose to prosecute a
criminal case if and only if he is an eye witness or he has a reasonable basis for
suspecting the accused.
92 (1987) vol 2 NSCC

93 (1985) vol 2 NCLR
 Attorney General Anambra vs Nwobodo94: In this case, some people were
accused of the murder of one Okwudili. The DPP refused to prosecute the case
on the grounds that no prima facie case was established against the accused.
The family of the deceased disagreed and asked the respondent to carry out a
private prosecution. However, the DPP didn’t endorse a certificate which
would allow for a private prosecution. The respondent thus sought for an order
of mandamus to compel the DPP. The court granted this order of mandamus
to compel the DPP to endorse the needed certificate to allow for private
prosecution.
 Abraham Adesanya vs President of Nigeria & Anor95: In this case, the
appellant instituted an action against the respondents challenging the
appointment of the second respondent by the first respondent to the post of
chairman of an electoral commission. The case was dismissed due to the fact
that the action of the respondents didn't have a direct impact on the appellant.
He was thus held not to possess locus standi in that case.
Historical Evolution Of Nigerian

Criminal Law
 Gubba vs Gwandu Native Authority96: In this case, the appellant was
sentenced to death for murder by an Alkali's Court. However, the appellant
had a defence of provocation but it was not considered by the Alkali's court
because provocation wasn't recognized under Islamic law. If the Alkali's court
had applied the Criminal Code, the death sentence would have been mitigated
to the sentence for manslaughter.
On appeal, the West African Court of Appeal quashed the decision of the lower
court. It held that customary courts could only fully apply customary law in
cases which are not covered under the Criminal Code. If the cases are covered
by the Criminal Code, customary law could not be applied.
 Maizabo vs Sokoto Native Authority97: In this case, the court held that
although a Native Court had power to try a case under Native law and custom,
it cannot impose a higher sentence than the accused would have gotten had his
case been tried under the Criminal Code.
94 (1992) NWLR pt 236

95 supra
96 (1947) WACA vol 12
97 (1957)
Territorial Jurisdiction Of Criminal Law
 Singh vs Fasi Okotie (1894) AC: In this case, the presiding Justice observed:
"... Territorial jurisdiction attaches to with special exception upon all persons
permanently or temporarily resident within the territory... It does not follow
after they have withdrawn from it and when they are living in another
independent country. It exists always with the land within the territory..."
 R vs Osoba98: In this case, the appellant was convicted on charges of theft. He

had by virtue of his position as Managing Director of a company directed, via
a telegram in Lagos, that a particular sum of money be paid out from the
company to a bank account in London.
On appeal, it was contended for the appellants that the trial court did not have
the jurisdiction to try the case since it occurred partly in London. The appellate
court in dismissing the appeal held that the trial court had the jurisdiction since
the initial element of the offence was carried out in Nigeria.
 Sunday Okoro vs AG Western Nigeria99: In this case, the accused posted a
letter in Port Harcourt which induced the fraud of certain people in Ibadan.
The court held that the former Western region had the jurisdiction to try the
case since an element of the offence occurred in its territory.
 Patrick Njovens vs State (1973) NMLR: In this case, the court in interpreting S.
12A (2) (b) of the Criminal Code stated:
"...we are satisfied that to construe the word 'enter' in the subsection as
meaning voluntary entry would be completely ridiculous since in that
circumstance no criminal will ever enter a state when he knows that such
entry may make him liable by the laws of the state..."
Elements of an Offence (Actus Reus and

Mens Rea)
 R vs Miller (1983) AC: In this case, the presiding Justice commenting on the
use of actus reus and stated:
"...My Lords it would I think, be conducive to clarity of analysis of the
ingredients of a crime that is created by statute, as are the greater majority of
criminal offences today, if we are to avoid bad latin and instead to think and
speak about the conduct of an accused and his state of mind at the time of the
conduct, instead of speaking of actus reus and mens rea..."
98 (1961) Vol 1 ANLR

99 (1966) NMLR
Actus Reus
 Akanni & Ors vs State100: In this case, the presiding justice while commenting
on the criminal liability of an omission to act stated:
"...the members of the crowd who stood by and watched the house in which they knew
an old woman was locked in and being burnt and did nothing behaved disgracefully
but that does not bring them within the provision of the law dealing with principal
offenders as to be regarded as participants in the act of murder..."
 R vs Parsonneur: In this case, a French woman who illegally entered the UK

was ordered to leave. Instead of complying, she went to Ireland where she was
arrested and subsequently brought to London to be convicted of vagrancy, the
equivalent of being an idle person.
Mens Rea
 Hyam vs DPP (1975) AC: In this case, the accused poured petrol into the letter
box of her lover's mistress' house and then ignited it, knowing fully well that
there were persons sleeping inside. This resulted in the death of the persons
inside.
In court, she contended that she had no intention of causing death but had
foreseen grievous bodily harm as a highly probable result of her action. The
court held that she was liable for murder considering the fact causing grievous
bodily harm was a highly probable result of her actions.
 Ubani vs The State101: The accused and appellant, armed with machetes and
guns, beat the deceased till he fell and discharged excreta. As a consequence of
this, he died. On appeal the Supreme Court held that death or grievous bodily
harm done to the deceased was, to the knowledge of the accused, a probable
consequence of his action. Thus, the accused was held guilty of murder.
 Idowu vs State102: In this case, the accused raped a girl of about five years and
as a result, she bled profusely. Subsequently, she was taken to the hospital
where she died and the appellant was charged for murder. He was convicted
of murder in the High Court and the Court of Appeal. When the case got to
the Supreme Court, the court held that the act of raping a child is not an act
that is reasonably likely to have resulted in death. As a result, the sentence of
the accused was reduced from murder to manslaughter.
100 (1959) WRNLR

101 (2003) vol 18 NWLR pt 851
102 (2000) vol 12 NWLR
 Idiok vs The State103: In this case, the appellant and some other people were
charged with the murder of the deceased. Not all of them could be brought
before the court because some escaped while another died. The only people
brought to the court were the first accused and the appellant.
The fact of the case was that this group of people tied up the deceased and
dragged him to his home, leading to his death. There was no evidence that the
first accused was at the scene of the crime and he was discharged. For the
appellant/second accused, there was evidence that he was the person that tied
up the defendant. He was convicted for murder at the trial and court of appeal.
On appeal to the Supreme Court, his appeal was dismissed. The dismissal was
on the ground that the act of the accused, in tying up the deceased in
preparation to drag him round the village was one that could reasonably lead
to death, as a result, the appellant’s conviction was upheld.
Parties to an Offence
Principal Offender
 Bashaya vs State104: The deceased, while on a journey, was attacked by a group

of men, armed with sticks and other weapons, and was killed. The person that
delivered the fatal blow was considered inconsequential and they were all
convicted for murder.
 R vs Michael105: A mother who intended to kill her baby told her nurse, who
had no idea it was poison, to administer a poisonous substance to her baby.
The nurse didn't and kept the drug on a shelf. Subsequently, a child saw the
drug and gave the baby, causing its death. It was held that the child was an
innocent agent and the mother the principal agent. The case would not have
been different had the nurse administered the poison.
Secondary Offender
 R vs Bryce106: The court held that in charging secondary offenders, phrases like
aid, abet and procure would be applicable.
103 (2006) vol 12 NWLR pt 913

104 (1998) 5 NWLR pt 550
105 (1840) vol 9 AC
106 (2004) vol 2 CAC
 R vs. Clarkson107: two of the defendant stumbled into a room in which a girl
was being raped. They neither joined in the act nor attempted to stop it. The
court held that inasmuch as they didn't join in the act, they were not liable for
any offence.
 Iyaro vs State108: In this case, the appellant was a taxi driver who intentionally
drove the victims to the scene where they were robbed. The court held that he
was a primary offender in the robbery incident since he acted in concert with
the other robbers. Thus, the court affirmed his conviction for robbery.
 Ubahar vs State109: In this case, the court defined “aid or abet” to mean assisting
or facilitating the commission of a crime.
 Amoo vs the State110: The court stated that the use of the word "counsel" in
relation to a secondary offence means to advise in the commission of the crime.
 Idika vs State111: The court stated that if the statute uses the word "procure" it
means to invite or persuade.
Homicide
 R vs West112: While an abortion was being carried out, the baby was delivered
prematurely and it was alive. However, due to external circumstances, the baby
died. It was held that inasmuch as the baby proceeded alive from its mother's
womb, it was a human being capable of being murdered. Thus, the accused
was convicted of murder.
 R vs Poulton: In this case, a mother strangled her child before it had completely
been given birth to. The court held that since the baby had not proceeded
completely from its mother, killing it was not murder.
 Maijamaa vs State (1964) vol 1 ANLR: The accused and some other people
attacked the deceased with sticks and he was beaten to death. The court
convicted them for murder under S.221(b) and S.79 of the Penal Code. The
reasoning of the court was that the act of a group of people attacking a person
with sticks has a probable consequence of causing death. On appeal, the
Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.
107 (1971) vol 55 CA Reports

108 (1988) NWLR pt 691
109 (2003) 6 NWLR pt 1000
110 (1954) 4 SC
111 (1975) Q.B
112 (1848) vol 2 C & K ER

Causation
 R vs Blaue113: The accused stabbed the deceased who was subsequently taken
to the hospital. At the hospital, the victim refused to take blood transfusion
because it was against her faith as a Jehovah Witness. The court convicted the
accused for manslaughter.
On appeal, the accused contended that the refusal of the deceased to take
transfusion because of her religion was unreasonable. Thus, it should be held
to have broken the causal chain. The court of appeal dismissed the appeal and
upheld the accused's conviction.
The court stated:
“It has long been the policy of the law that those who use violence on other
people must take their victim as they find them. This, in our judgement,
means the whole man and not just the physical man.
It does not lie in the mouth of the assailant to say that the victim's religious
beliefs which inhibited him from accepting certain kinds of treatment were
unreasonable.
The question for decision is "what caused her death?" And the answer is the
stab wound. The fact that the victim refused to stop this end coming about
did not break the causal connection between the act and the death."
 Oforlete vs. The State114: The accused hit the deceased on the head with a
kitchen stool. Complications didn't arise until three months later when the head
of the deceased got swollen. He was rushed to the hospital where he spent two
weeks and was subsequently sent to a psychiatric hospital where he died.
There was contradictory evidence from two medical doctors that there was the
possibility of a different factor causing the death of the deceased. The trial court
convicted the accused. On appeal, the court of appeal upheld the decision of
the trial court.
On further appeal to the Supreme Court, the court set aside the judgement of
the lower court and was of the opinion that in establishing a causal link
between the act of the accused and the relevant consequence as a factual
question, no aspect of the enquiry should be left to assumption, speculation or
conjecture.
113 (1975) Vol 3 All E.R

114 (2000) vol 12 NWLR pt 681
Thus, the long period of time between the act and the contradictory evidence
of the doctors had greatly weakened the causal link. As a result, conviction
can’t be secured on such grounds.
 R vs. Nwaoke (1939) Vol 5 WACA: The accused threatened the deceased with
a charm that if he didn't pay up the debt that he owed the accused, he would
not be able to eat or sleep and he would subsequently die. Subsequently, the
deceased was depressed and he committed suicide.
The trial court convicted the accused. On appeal, the West African Court of
Appeal allowed the appeal on the ground that there was no causal link between
the threat of the accused and the subsequent suicide of the deceased. Thus, the
accused was discharged and acquitted.
Manslaughter
 R vs Doughty115: The accused was to take care of his baby and the home at the
same time. This was due to the fact that his wife had a caesarean section and
could not assist. On a particular night, his 17 day old baby was crying profusely
and the accused in an attempt to stop the crying, covered the baby's mouth.
Due to his exhaustion and confusion, he pressed too hard and it resulted in the
baby's death.
At the trial court, it was held that this could not amount to provocation. On
appeal, the court of appeal held that the circumstances of the scenario could
end up provoking the man and thus, his sentence was reduced from murder to
manslaughter.
 Ewo Akang vs The State (1971) vol 1 ANLR: The court stated:
“Provocation which reduces what will otherwise amount to murder to

manslaughter is a legal concept. It is of paramount importance in the
consideration of this concept that the act held out as a natural and justifiable
reaction of the provoked person was done not in self-revenge, but in
ventilation of a natural, sudden and contemporaneous feeling of anger
caused by the circumstances of the occasion."
115 (1986) vol 83 C.A.R

Rape
 Upahar vs The State116: The court held that to establish the offence of rape, the
prosecution has to prove:
1. That the accused had sexual intercourse with the victim.

2. The sexual intercourse was done in circumstances under the
provision of S.282 (1) of the PC.
3. The victim wasn't the wife of the accused or if she was the wife, had
not attained the age of puberty.
4. The accused had the mens rea to have sexual intercourse with the
victim without her consent, or he was reckless and careless regarding
her consent.
5. There was penetration.
 Sambo vs. The State117: The appellant asked the victim, a young girl of eleven,
to bring water into his room. Upon bringing the water, he played loud music
and he alleged that he danced with the victim. After the victim left the room,
she was crying and blood was found on her thighs by her sister. She told her
sister that she was raped by the accused. Her sister then reported the case to
the police for rape.
At the trial court and the court of appeal, the accused was convicted of rape. At
the Supreme Court, in allowing the appeal, the court held that the testimony of
the victim alleging rape was not well corroborated by other external evidence.
Thus, in this situation, a conviction for rape could not be secured.
Inchoate Offences/Attempt
 Jegede vs The State118: In this case, the court held that for an act to constitute
an attempt the act must be immediately connected with the commission of the
particular offence charged and must be something more than mere preparation
for the commission of the offence.
116 (2003) Vol 6 NWLR pt 816

117 (1993) Vol 6 NWLR pt 300
118 (2001) vol 14 NWLR pt 733
 Bassey Akpan Idn vs The State119: The Court of Appeal, in affirming the
conviction for attempted murder meted out to the accused, reiterated that in a
charge of attempted murder, the mens rea is the intention to kill.
 R vs. Whybrow120: The accused delivered an electric shock to his wife while
she was having her bath. The court also held that the intention to kill is the
principal element to be proved in a charge of attempted murder.
 R vs. Khan121: The accused was charged for attempted rape. The court held:
"... In a case of rape, an attempted rape will be the intent to have sexual
intercourse in circumstances where she does not consent and the defendant
knows or cares less about her absence of consent. He commits the offence
because of the circumstances in which he manifests that intent..."
 R vs White (1910) vol 2 KB: The accused tried to kill his mother with poison.
However, the poison could not kill the mother due to insufficient quantity. The
court stated:
"...A man may set out to commit a crime with inadequate tools. He may find
that he cannot break in because the door is too strong for him. If he used
poison which is not strong enough, he is certainly guilty of attempt because
with better equipment or greater skill, he could have committed the full
crime..."
Conspiracy
 Sule vs. The State122: In this case, Ogbuagu JSC had this to say on conspiracy:
"... An offence of conspiracy can be committed where persons have acted

either by an agreement or in concert. A bare agreement to commit an offence
is sufficient. The actual commission of the offence is not necessary.
 R vs. Reed (1982) CLR: In this case, it was held that if A and B agree to rob a
bank, in arriving at the bank it seems safe to do so, their agreement would
necessary involve the commission of the offence of robbery. If it is carried out
in accordance with their intentions, accordingly, they are guilty of the statutory
offence of conspiracy.
 R vs Anderson (1986) AC: In this case, the accused, for a fee, agreed to supply
diamond wire to cut through bar in order to enable another to escape from
prison. The accused claimed that he only intended to supply the wire and then
119 (1994) vol 8 NWLR pt 365

120 (1951) vol 35 CRA
121 (1990) vol 2 All E.R
122 2009 Vol 17 NWLR pt 1169
go abroad believing that the plan could never succeed. The accused's conviction
for conspiring with others was sustained at the appellate court.
The Offence of Theft/Stealing

Appropriation
 Corcoran vs. Aderton123: The court held that the act of the accused in grabbing
the handbag of the victim amounted to appropriation. This was regardless of
the fact that the accused didn't get away with the bag.
 Lawrence vs. MPC: The victim paid 10,000 pounds to the accused as taxi fare
for taking him to his destination, even though the amount charged by the taxi
driver was way too exorbitant compared to the normal price. The court held
that in this kind of scenario, the accused was guilty of the offence of theft
regardless of the fact that the victim consented to the taking. The taking in this
instance could be akin to a fraud.
 Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Co vs. McNicols124: The court stated that
conversion occurs when goods are dealt with in a manner that is inconsistent
with the rights of the true owner of the property. In this situation, there must
be the proof of the accused's intention to permanently deprive the true owner
of his property by the conversion.
 Oshinye vs. COP: The accused person obtained goods from another person by
misrepresenting that the owner authorised him to make use of the property. At
this point, the accused intended to return it back, so it wasn't an act of
conversion. However, when the accused subsequently appropriated the
property for his own personal use, it was held to be a case of stealing by
conversion.
 Onwudiwe vs FRN125: The court held that conversion becomes theft when the
element of fraud is present in the conversion.
Property
 Ojiko vs. IGP126: In this case, the accused was given money by the victim to
buy land and subsequently transfer the title of the land to him. However, the
accused bought the land but didn't transfer the title to the victim.
123 (1980) Vol 71 CA

124 1919 88 LJKB 601.
125 (2006) 10 NWLR pt 988
126 (1956) Vol 1 FSC
The court held that in this situation, the money cannot be said to be stolen since
it was used for what it was meant to be used for. However, for the land, an
action for theft cannot be brought about due to the fact that land isn't regarded
as property capable of being stolen.
 R vs. Hancock127: The court held that information falls under the scope of
intangible property which cannot be stolen.
 R vs. Kohn128: The accused was convicted for theft when he, without
appropriate authorisation, signed cheques for the withdrawal of money from
the account of the company in which he was an employee.
Dishonest Taking
 R vs Easom129: The accused searched a woman's bag for money but didn't see
any money in the bag. He thus left the bag where he found it. He was
subsequently convicted for the theft of the bag. The appellate court quashed
the conviction on the ground that the accused didn't intend to permanently
deprive the owner of the bag. He only intended to permanently deprive the
owner of the money inside the bag. Thus, he could not be said to have stolen
the bag.
The Offence of Receiving Stolen

Property
Receiving Stolen Property
 Olujomoye vs R130: The court held that the receiving could either be actual or
constructive. It is actual where the goods are physically received by the
accused. The reception is constructive where the accused receives the goods
through an agent or third party under his control.
 R vs. Osakwe131: In this case, A, B and C stole a car. X agreed to get them a
dealer if the car was in good condition. One of the thieves went to bring the car.
As at the time the car arrived, the police got to the scene. The car was in X’s
compound while the thieves were also there. The court held that X was not
guilty of receiving stolen property because the goods were neither in his
possession (it had not been given to him) nor had he already aided in its
concealment.
127 1992 Vol 2 WLR

128 1979 vol 2 WLR
129 (1971) 2 All ER 945
130 (1936) 3 WACA 71
131 [1963] 1 All NLR 362
The Accused Knew the Goods Were Stolen
 R vs. Adebowale132: In this case, stolen gin was sold at 10 percent below its
market value. Also, they were delivered in kerosene containers instead of the
normal gin container. It was held that the above situations could be considered
as unreasonable circumstances. Hence they would ordinarily warrant the
suspicion that the gin was stolen property.
 R vs. Iyakwe: In this case, it was held, by following the provisions of S. 36 of
the Evidence Act, that being in possession of shoes stolen five months
previously was enough to establish that the accused received stolen property.
Receiving Converted Stolen Property

 D'Andrea vs Woods133: In this case, two girls stole saving stamps and
converted it to money, giving the money to the accused. The accused was
subsequently tried and convicted for receiving stolen property according to the
provisions of S. 33 and 46 of the Larceny Act 1916134.
House Breaking And Burglary

Breaking
 R vs. Boyle135: In this case, it was held that the act of a person – intending to
commit a felony – in gaining entrance into the house by posing as a sanitary
inspector amounted to breaking.
 R vs. Chandler136: In this case, it was held that if the owner of the house sees
through the deception and allows the accused to enter the house in order to
catch him, then it would not be breaking.
 State vs. Onwemunlo137: In this case, it was held that the act of a thief entering
into a house through a door that was already open would not be considered as
breaking.
Entering
 Collins vs. State: In this case, it was held that the act of the accused in allowing
just his leg into the building was sufficient to establish entering.
A Dwelling House
 R vs. Rose138: In this case, it was held that a caravan which was used by the
owner as a place of residence qualified to be regarded as a dwelling house.
132 (1941) 7 WACA 142

133 (1953) 1 WLR 1307
134 Not Applicable in Nigeria
135 (1954) 2 QB 292
136 (1913) 1 KB 125
137 (1967) MSNLR 137
138 (1965) QWN 35
Burglary
 Akosa vs. Commissioner of Police139: In this case, the court held that in the
definition of the offence of burglary, night time is the period from 6.30 pm to
6.30 am.
 R vs. Smith140: In this case, the breaking in was on Friday night and the entering
was on Saturday night, it was regarded as burglary.
Robbery and Armed Robbery

Robbery
 R vs. Bekun141: In this case, A and his companions left some valuable property
in the possession of the accused and went out to buy some meat. On their way
back, they were attacked and killed by the accused, who then subsequently
possessed the valuables. It was held that this was robbery since the use of
violence in this instance was immediately before the taking of the property.
 Njuguna vs. Republic142: In this case, the accused burgled a house and carted
away some valuables. Later on, he was discovered −without chase− with the
goods at a distance of about 500 yards away from the scene of the crime. He
resisted −with violence− attempts at repossession of the goods. It was held that
this wasn’t a case of robbery considering the fact that the act of violence did not
occur immediately after he stole the goods.
Armed Robbery
 John Nwachuckwu vs. The State143: In this case, the accused carried out
robbery with the use of a toy gun. The court held that although the threat of
violence was present at the performance of the act, it would only amount to
robbery. This was due to the fact that a toy gun does not fall under the category
of firearms or offensive weapons as provided by the Robbery and Firearms
Act144.
139 (1950) 13 WACA 43

140 (1920) R & R 417
141 1941 WACA vol. 17
142 1965 EA
143 1985 vol. 2 NWLR
144 See also: State vs Okonkwo 1998 vol. 1 LRCNCC
Treason and Treasonable Felony
 R vs. Hardie145: In this case, it was held that when it comes to treason, the
essence of waging the war must be for general or public purpose, if it just for
private reasons, it would best be regarded as a riot or public disturbance.
Sedition
 DPP vs. Oby146: In this case, the court per Ademola CJ stated:
A person has every right to discuss any grievance or criticise, canvass and
censor the act of government and their public policy. He may even do this
with a view to effecting a change to the party in power or to call attention to
some of the weaknesses of the government so long as he keeps within the
limits of fair criticism.
It is clearly legitimate and constitutional, by means of fair argument, to
criticise the government of the day. What is not allowed is to criticise the
government in a malignant manner as described in this case. For such
attacks, by their nature, tend to affect the public peace.
 African Press Ltd vs. R: In this case, an article which warned the public to
beware of administrative officers as they were clearly disguised enemies of the
struggle for freedom, was held to be seditious.
 R vs Agunwa: In this case, the court stated that in establishing the offence of
sedition, attention should be paid to the circumstances surrounding the
particular case in question. The court stated:
"... Language which would be innocuous ... If used to an assembly of
professors or divines might produce a different result if used before an
excited audience of young and uneducated men"
General Defences to Criminal Liability

Accident
 Iromantu vs State147: In this case, the deceased grabbed a gun from the accused.
In the struggle to collect back the gun, the accused mistakenly touched the
trigger and the gun went off, killing the deceased. The court held that the
accused was not criminally liable since the act occurred independently of the
exercise of his will.
145 (1821) 1 St. Tr. 609

146 1961 Vol 1 ANLR
147 (1964) 1 All NLR 311
 State vs Appoh148: In this case, two boys were pushing themselves near the
river. While doing this, they were warned by another boy that they were
playing a dangerous game. As they continued, one of the boys pushed the other
into the river and he drowned. The court held that the defence of accident
would not apply since it is reasonably foreseeable that pushing near a river
could lead to drowning.
 Ukot vs State149: In this case, the accused swung a pen knife in a crowd in order
to escape. While swinging the knife, it hit someone and killed him. The accused
pleaded accident but the court did not grant his plea because it was reasonably
foreseeable that by swinging a pen knife in a crowd, the knife could hit anyone.
Mistake
 Sherras vs De Rutzen150: In this case, the accused was held not to be liable
under S. 16(1) of the Licensing Act when he served beer to a police officer who
he thought was off duty since he wasn’t wearing his uniform. This is a mistake
of fact not of law since he knew the law but was mistaken as to the fact of the
hospital being on or off duty.
 Ogbu vs R151: In this case, one of the accused paid a bribe in order to be
appointed as the village headman. The trial court acquitted him due to the fact
that he stated that he didn’t know that offering a bribe was an offence. On
appeal by the second accused, the court held that it was wrong for the trial
court to acquit the other accused based on the excuse that he didn’t know that
offering a bribe is an offence (ignorance of the law is not an excuse). The court
of appeal could not convict the second accused because he had already been set
free by the trial court and his case was not brought for appeal.
 Gaddam vs R152: In this case, the accused killed an old woman who he believed
was a witch. The West African Court of Appeal held that this belief was
unreasonable and thus a mistake of fact would not be applicable.
Bona Fide Claim of Right
 R vs. Vega153: In this case, the accused was prosecuted for stealing some
corrugated iron sheets which were lying around. The accused raised the
defence that he took the sheets on the honest belief that they had been
abandoned since they were lying there for a long time. The court acceded to
this defence.
148 (1970) 2 All NLR 218

149 (1992) 5 NWLR pt 240
150 (1895) 1 QB 918
151 (1959) NRNLR 22
152 (1954) 14 WACA 442
153 (1938) 40 WACA
Judicial Officers and Execution of the Law
 Anderson vs. Gorrie154: In this case, it was held that no criminal action could
be brought against a judge of a superior court in respect of an act done by him
in his judicial capacity even if there is evidence that he acted maliciously.
Alibi
 Afolalu vs. The State155: In this case, the accused and three other persons were
charged with the robbery and rape of the victims. The accused raised the
defence of alibi stating that at the time of the said incident, he was at home
watching a video with his friend. Although the police wasn’t able to disprove
the alibi, the accused was convicted due to the fact that the one of the victims
identified him on the scene of the crime. This was taken as cogent and
compelling evidence to nullify the defence of alibi.
 Shehu vs State156: In this case, the accused was charged to court for mischief
on the ground that he burnt the court house in which his case file was situated.
The prosecution relied on the circumstantial evidence that the accused had
commented that the trial would start afresh. The accused gave the defence of
alibi that when the said act occurred, he was at home with his wife. He and his
wife gave evidence in that regard and the police couldn’t disprove it. The
accused was discharged and acquitted because the prosecution couldn’t
disprove the alibi and they had no compelling evidence fixing the accused to
the scene of the crime.
Self Defence
 Musa Kaya vs. State157: In this case, it was held that the following have to be
established before self-defence can be applied:
o Freedom from fault in bringing about the encounter.
o Presence of impending threat to life or great bodily harm either real or
apparent as to create an honest belief of being attacked.
o There must have been no other reasonable way of escaping from the
threat except by the use of force.
o The accused must have taken reasonable steps to disengage from the
fight.
154 (1894) 1 QB 668

155 2010 6 – 7 MSCJ 187
156 2010 3 MJSC pt. II
157 (1998) 2 NWLR pt 538
The Law of Torts
Comparison between Torts and Other
Areas of Law
Tort and Crime
 Smith vs. Selwyn158: In this case, the court held that where a civil wrong is also
a crime, a civil action cannot be brought before the court until the criminal
action is concluded or a cogent reason for default of criminal action is provided.
This means that any civil suit brought to court without following the above rule
was bound to fail in court.
 Nwankwa vs. Ajaegbu159: In this case, the plaintiff reported an assault but it
wasn't prosecuted by the police. He then went on to bring civil proceedings
against the defendant. The defendant contended that since no criminal action
has been concluded in respect of the case, no civil action could be sustained.
The court rejected this argument and stated that inasmuch as the case has been
reported to the police, whether it is prosecuted or not, a civil action can be
brought before the court.
 Veritas Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Citi Trust Investment Ltd 160: In this case, the
court ruled that the rule in Smith vs. Selwyn could not apply because it was in
contradiction to S.5 of the Criminal Code and S.8 of the Interpretation Act.
By the provision of S.5 of the Criminal Code, the Act would not affect the right
of action which a person would have against another person if the Criminal
Code had not been passed.
By the provision of S.8 (2) of the Interpretation Act, an enactment cannot
prevent the recovery of damages in respect of injury suffered by an act just
because it had already provided a punishment for that act.
Torts and Contract

 Kelly vs. Metropolitan Railway Co161: In this case, the plaintiff sued the
company for injury sustained due to the negligence of members of its staff
during a journey. The court held that in this scenario, it was a tort even though
there was a contract between both parties.
158 (1914) 3 KB 98
159 (1978) 2 LRN 230
160 (1993) 3 NWLR pt 281
161 (1895) 1 Q.B 944
 Quo Vadis Hotel Ltd vs. Nigeria Marine Services Ltd (1992) 6 NWLR pt 250162:
In this case, the court held that if a negligent act in a contract adversely affected
the root of the contract, it would not be regarded as negligence but as a breach
of contract. Principles Of Liability
Intentional Damage is Never too Remote

 Scott vs. Shepherd (1773) 96 ER 925: In this case, the defendant threw a lighted
squib (firework) into the market and it landed on a stall. In order to save their
wares, different shop owners threw it away. In this process, the squib hit the
plaintiff in the face and blinded him in one eye. The court held that the
defendant was liable for his actions as injury was foreseeable from his actions.
 Wilkinson vs. Downton163: In this case, the defendant jokingly told the plaintiff
that her husband was engaged in a terrible accident. The plaintiff as a result of
this suffered nervous shock and was hospitalised. In court it was held that the
defendant was liable even though he meant no harm.
Egg Shell/Thin Skull Rule

 Morgan vs. Wallis164: In this case, the plaintiff suffered injury to his back while
trying to avoid a rope thrown by a stevedore onto the barge while working at
a port.
The defendant, who was the plaintiff's employer, accepted liability but
contested the extent of damages due to the fact that the plaintiff refused to
undergo test and medical operation after the accident. The refusal to undergo
tests was held to be unreasonable by the court due to the fact that the operation,
if carried out, would have been successful. The court thus ruled in favour of the
defendants.
Strict Liability
 Pearks, Gunsten & Tee Ltd vs. Ward165: In this case, the appellant company
was held liable for the acts of its employees who sold its fresh butter mixed
with water. Channel J had this to say on the nature of strict liability in relation
to consumer protection:
"... The legislature has thought it so important to prevent the particular act
from being committed that it absolutely forbids it to be done; and if it is done,
the offender is liable to a penalty, whether he has any men rea(guilty mind)
or not and whether or not he intended to commit a breach of the law..."
 Curtis vs. Betts166: In this case, the defendant was taking his dog, a bull mastiff,
from the house to the car. In the process, a ten year old boy came near the dog.
162 Quo Vadis Hotel Ltd vs. Nigeria Marine Services

163 (1897) 2 QB 57
164 (1974) 1 LL Rep. 165
165 (1902) 2 KB 1
166 1 All ER 769
The dog attacked and injured the child. The court held that the owner of the
dog was strictly liable for the injury suffered.
 Rylands vs. Fletcher167: In this case, the defendant was collecting water in a
reservoir close to the plaintiff’s coal mine. The water subsequently leaked into
the plaintiff’s land and caused damage. The court held that if a person brings
into his land something that is capable of doing mischief if it escapes, and that
thing does escape, the person who brought it would be liable for any damage
caused. This is regardless of whether or not he was negligent or at fault.
Damage and Liability in Tort

Damage without Legal Wrong (Damnum Sine Injuria)
 Mogul Steamship Co vs. McGregor GOW and Co168: In this case, the plaintiff
and the defendants were competitors in the same trade. The defendants formed
an association to the exclusion of the plaintiff. The association persuaded tea
merchants in China to cease dealing with the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff
brought the action alleging that the defendants had a civil conspiracy to injure
his trade.
The House of Lords held that although the action by the defendants would
result in loss to the plaintiff, the actions were not done by an unlawful means
and thus, no action could lie against the defendants.
 Bradford Corporation vs. Pickles169: In this case, the parties were adjoining
landowners. The plaintiff company was statutorily empowered to collect water
from certain springs. In order to do this, part of the channels flowed through
the defendant's land.
The defendant, in order to induce the plaintiff corporation into buying his land
at a higher price, obstructed the flow of water on his land. The corporation thus
brought an action against him. The court held that the defendant had every
right to collect water on his own land notwithstanding the fact that the act was
done with malice.
 Hargreaves vs. Bretherton (1958) 1 QB 45: In this case, the plaintiff brought an
action against the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff was imprisoned
due to perjury committed by the defendant. The court held that the action
167 (1868) LR 3 HL 330

168 (1892) AC 25
169 (1895) AC 587 HL
would fail because it was based on perjury and there was nothing like the tort
of perjury. Perjury is only a crime.
Legal Wrong without Damage (Injuria Sine Damnum)

 Newstead vs. London Express Newspaper170: In this case, the defendant
Newspaper made a publication that a Harold Newstead, a 30 year old man from
Camberwell, was imprisoned for bigamy. Although the newspaper wasn’t
talking about him, the description they used fit the plaintiff. He thus sued for
defamation and the court ruled in his favour.
 Ashby vs. White (1703) 1 ER 417: In this case, the defendant prevented the
claimant from casting his vote at an election. Thus, the claimant sued and the
court ruled in his favour. This was regardless of the fact that the candidate that
the claimant wanted to vote in finally won the elections.
The Rule of Reasonable Foreseeability

 Liesbosch Dredger vs. Edison Steamship; The Edison171: In this case, the
plaintiff – contractors who were doing a dredging work – lost their ship due to
the fact that the defendant's ship collided with theirs and caused it to sink. Due
to this, they lost their ship and could also not complete their contract work. This
resulted into financial embarrassment for the plaintiff company. The company
thus sued requesting damages from the loss of the ship and also for the
resultant financial embarrassment.
The House of Lords held that the defendants were liable for the ship, however,
they were held to be free of liability regarding the financial embarrassment
suffered. Lord Wright stated:
"...The law cannot take account of everything that follows a wrongful act; it
regards some subsequent matters as outside the scope of its selection because
it were infinite to trace the cause of causes or consequences of consequences.
Thus, the loss of a ship by collision due to the other vessel's sole fault may
force the ship owner into bankruptcy and that again may involve his family
in suffering, loss of education or opportunities in life, but no such loss could
be recovered from the wrongdoer.
In the varied web of affairs, the law must abstract some consequences as
relevant, not perhaps on grounds of pure logic but simply for practical
reasons. In the present case, if the appellant's financial embarrassment is to
be regarded as a consequence of the respondent's tort, I think it is too
remote..."
170 (1940) 1 KB 377

171 (1933) All ER 144
The Initial Rule of Directness of Damage
 Re Polemis172: In this case, charterers employed stevedores to unload a ship.

Unknown to the stevedores, there was a leakage of petrol in the hold of the ship
and thus there was inflammable vapour. One of the stevedores inadvertently
kicked a plank into the hold and it caused a spark which ended up burning the
ship. The owners of the ship sued the charterers and the stevedores for the
damage caused to the ship.
The court held that the defendants were liable irrespective of the fact that it
wasn't reasonably foreseeable to the stevedore that kicking a plank in the hold
of a ship would lead to the ship's destruction.
The Rule of Reasonable Foreseeability

 Wagon Mound's Case173: In this case, the defendants (appellants) discharged
fuel into the Sydney Harbour. This fuel floated into the plaintiff’s
(respondent's) wharf where they were repairing a ship. There was a piece of
cotton floating in the water and it was ignited by welding being done by the
respondents. This caused the fuel in the water to catch fire and it destroyed the
respondent's wharf and the ship under repairs. Thus, the respondent sued for
damages.
The Privy Council held that the appellants would not be liable because it was
not reasonably foreseeable that oil being spilt into the ocean could cause a fire
which would subsequently destroy a ship. However, the appellants were held
to be liable for fouling up the respondent's slipways since this was a reasonably
foreseeable consequence of pouring oil into the ocean.
 Adigun vs. AG Oyo State174: the court held per Eso JSC that the reasonable
man test to be used would be a reasonable man in the position and state of life
of the tortfeasor.
 Hughes vs. Lord Advocate (1963) AC 837: In this case, there was construction
work being done by post office workers on the road. The construction area was
covered with tents and there were also paraffin lamps around the tents. While
the workers went for a break, two children came around and were playing
around the site. During the course of this, one of the children fell with the
paraffin lamp and it caused an explosion which injured the child.
In an action against the post office workers, the court held that although it was
not reasonably foreseeable for an explosion to occur, it was foreseeable that
172 (1921) All ER 40

173 (1961) All ER 404 PC
174 (1987) 1 NWLR pt 53, p.678 @ 720
carelessly abandoning paraffin lamps would cause injury. Thus, they were held
liable for the burns suffered by the child.
The court further added that a person would still be held liable for a reasonably
foreseeable consequence of his action even if the means by which the
consequence occurred (in this case, the explosion) was not reasonably
foreseeable.
 Doughty vs. Turner Manufacturing Co Ltd175: In this case, the plaintiff, who
was an employee of the defendant company was wearing an asbestos suit. A
fellow employee allowed the plaintiff slip into a cauldron of molten metal. This
caused an explosion and injured the plaintiff. However, at that time, it wasn't
known that asbestos coming into contact with molten metal would result in an
explosion.
The court held that in this instance, the result (explosion) was not reasonably
foreseeable. Hence the defendant was held to be free of liability.
Trespass To Persons
Assault
 Collins vs. Wilcock176: In this case, Gold LJ defines assault as "an act which
causes another person to apprehend infliction of immediate and unlawful force
on his person."
 Turberville vs. Savage177: In this case, Turberville put his hand on his sword
and said "if it were not assize time, I would not take such language from
you". Savage later sued for assault. The court was of rather of the opinion that
by Turberville's action and words, he meant that he would not attack Savage at
that point, making the allegation of assault baseless.
 R vs. St George 1840 9 C&P 483: In this case, the court stated:
It is an assault to point a weapon at a person, though not loaded but so near

that if loaded, it might do injury. However, if the victim knew that the gun
was unloaded, any fear would be regarded as unreasonable. The threat must
be capable of being carried out at the point it is made.
 R vs. Ireland: In this case, the House of Lords held that in establishing assault
in cases of telephone threat the fear has to be that the assailant would turn up
in a minute or two.
175 (1964) 1 QB 518

176 1984 All ER 374
177 (1669) 1 MOD REP at 3
 Stevens vs. Myers178: In this case, the defendant was advancing with a clenched
fist towards the claimant but was prevented from hitting the claimant due to
the intervention of third parties. It was held that there was assault.
 Thomas vs. National Union of Mine Workers (South Wales Area)179: In this
case, the claimant who went to work despite a miners strike had threats
shouted at him by other miners. However, the other miners were restrained by
the police and the claimant was in a bus. The court held that considering the
situation, there was no reasonable fear of the defendants carrying out their
action at that point.
Battery
 Collins vs. Wilcock180: In this case, Goff LJ stated that battery is the actual
infliction of unlawful force on another person. He said that touching would
amount to battery if it doesn't fall within the realm of normal touching
experienced in conduct of everyday life.
 Marube vs. Nyamuro181: In this case, the appellant, an infant, sued through his
father for battery suffered when the respondent was flogging him with a rope
which hit his right eye causing him to lose that eye. According to testimony of
the appellant and other pupils, the injury suffered was a result of the deliberate
act of the respondent.
The defence of the respondent was that it was a mistake and he didn't intend
to hit the appellant on the eye. The court held that flogging the claimant was
intentional irrespective of whether or not harm was intended. And since harm
resulted from this, he would be liable.
 Livingstone vs. Ministry of Defence182: In this case, a soldier in Northern
Ireland fired a baton round at a rioter. The round missed the rioter and hit the
claimant. Although the soldier didn’t intend to hit the claimant, the principle
of transferred malice was applied and the soldier was held liable for battery.
 Scott vs. Shepherd183: Shepherd threw a lighted squib into the market and it
landed on the stall of a ginger bread seller. Willis picked it up and threw it
away, it landed on Ryal's stall, who picked it up and threw it away. It struck
the claimant in the face and blinded him in one eye.
The court held that the injury was a result of the action of defendant and he
was held liable for battery.
178 (1830) 4 C&P 349

179 1985 2 All E.R 1
180 Supra
181 CA No.8 1983
182 1984 356 NICA
183 1773 WM 1892
Defences to Assault and Battery
 Simms vs. Leigh Rugby Football Club (1969) 2 All ER 923: In this case, the
claimant, a visiting rugby player, was tackled and as a result hit the wall,
breaking his leg and he sued for battery. It was held that as a rugby player he
had already consented to rough tackles and thus, the defendants were not
liable.
 F vs. West Berkshire Health Authority184: In this case, the F was a 36 year old
woman who, due to her mental condition, had the capacity of a small child. She
formed a sexual relationship with a male patient which, if leading to
pregnancy, would be disastrous to her mental health. She was thus sterilized,
with the consent of her mother. It was held that in this case, the battery was
lawful since it was a medical necessity.
 Cockcroft vs. Smith (1705) 11 MOD 43: In this case, there was an argument
between a lawyer and a clerk in court. The clerk pointed his fingers towards
the lawyer's eyes and the lawyer bit off the finger. It was held that the defence
of self-defence would not avail the defendant because the action was not
proportionate to the threat posed. Thus, the defendant was held liable for
battery.
False Imprisonment
 Merring vs. Graham White Aviation Company Ltd185: In this case, the
claimant was brought to his employer's office to answer some questions in
relation to a theft. Two guards were stationed outside to prevent him from
leaving the room. When the claimant found out, he sued for false
imprisonment. Lord Atkin held:
It appears to me that a person could be imprisoned without his knowledge.
It is quite unnecessary to go on to show that in fact the man knew that he was
imprisoned.
Thus, the defendants were held liable for false imprisonment.
 Bird vs. Jones the plaintiff was prevented from crossing a particular bridge. He
was however allowed to go through another route. He thus sued for false
imprisonment.
In dismissing the claim for false imprisonment, Lord Coleridge Stated:

"...I am of opinion that there was no imprisonment. To call it so appears to
me to confound partial obstruction and disturbance with total obstruction
and detention. A prison may have its boundary large or narrow, visible and
184 2 AC 1(1990)
185 1919 122
tangible, or, though real, still in the conception only; it may itself be moveable
or fixed. But a boundary it must have; and that boundary the party
imprisoned must be prevented from passing; he must be prevented from
leaving that place, within the ambit of which the party imprisoning would
confine him, except by prison-breach.
Some confusion seems to me to arise from confounding imprisonment of the
body with mere loss of freedom: it is one part of the definition of freedom to
be able to go whithersoever one pleases; but imprisonment is something
more than the mere loss of this power; it includes the notion of restraint
within some limits defined by a will or power exterior to our own..."
Lord Denman however dissented. He stated:

"...As long as I am prevented from doing what I have a right to do, of what
importance is it that I am permitted to do something else? How does the
imposition of an unlawful condition show that I am not restrained? If I am
locked in a room, am I not imprisoned because I might effect my escape
through a window, or because I might find an exit dangerous or inconvenient
to myself as by wading through water or by taking a route so circuitous that
my necessary affairs would suffer by delay? It appears to me that this is a
total deprivation of liberty..."
Thus, it should be noted that if the means of escape is one that is risky or is
likely to cause personal injury or unreasonable, there would be liability for false
imprisonment.
 R vs. Governor of Brockhill Prison Exparte Evans186: In this case, the time of
imprisonment of a convict was wrongfully calculated. Thus, the convict spent
extra time in prison. It was held that this resulted in false imprisonment. The
fact that the defendant knowingly imprisoned the claimant made him liable
even though the imprisonment was due to negligence.
Defences to False Imprisonment
 Kariuki vs. East African Industries Ltd & Anor187: In this case, the plaintiff, an
employee of the defendant company was arrested and charged on the ground
of theft. His arrest was occasioned by investigations conducted by two fellow
employees. He was remanded for three months following an order of the court.
After the trial, he was acquitted of the charge.
The plaintiff subsequently instituted an action in court for wrongful arrest,
malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. The court held that that an
action for false imprisonment would fail where the imprisonment was through
the order of a court.
186 No 2 2001 2 AC 19
187 Civil case no 1414 (1990)
The Rule in Wilkinson vs. Downton
 Wilkinson vs. Downtown188: In the case, the defendant, who knew it to be
untrue, falsely told the plaintiff that her husband had been seriously injured in
a motor accident. Due to this news, the claimant had a nervous shock which
subsequently inflicted physical illness on her. The court held that she had a
cause of action.
Wright J held:
The practical joker in this case itself was liable on the basis that he had
wilfully done an act calculated to cause physical harm to the plaintiff on the
basis of the Protection from Harassment Act 1897.
Note that since this is not a form of trespass, the claimant must prove actual
loss.
Trespass to Land
 Onasanya vs. Emmanuel: In this case, the court held that trespass to land is
committed where the defendant, without lawful justification:
o Enters upon the land in the plaintiff's possession.
o Remains upon such land.
o Directly places or projects a material object upon such land.

 Entick vs. Carrington: In this case, it was held that the slightest crossing of the
boundary of the plaintiff's land would also amount to trespass. The court was
of the view that "every invasion of property, be it so minute, is a trespass."
 Balogun vs. Alakija: In this case, the plaintiff was employed by the defendant
to collect rents on the defendant's behalf. One evening, after business hours, the
defendant went to the plaintiff's house to demand an account of the rent
collected. An argument ensued and in the end, the defendant was asked to
leave the premises of the plaintiff. The defendant refused to leave till about
after fifteen minutes of being told to leave.
The court held that in this case, the right of the defendant to stay on the land
had expired after being told to leave. By refusing to leave, his action constituted
trespass and he is therefore liable.
 Bernstein vs. Skyviews Ltd: In this case, it was held that the maxim – quic quid
plantatur solo solo cedit – does not apply in a situation in which the defendant's
188 (1897) 2 QB 57
aircraft flew several hundred feet above the plaintiff's roof. The court posited
that the maxim only extends to the point of reasonable use of airspace above
the land.
 Wollerton Ltd vs. Constain Ltd: In this case, where a crane of the defendant
swung over the plaintiff's roof at a distance of 50 ft., it was held to be trespass.
 Kelson vs. Imperial Tobacco Ltd: In this case, where a signboard on the
adjacent premises potruded a few feet above the plaintiff's premises, it was
held to be trespass.
Trespass to Land
 Onasanya vs. Emmanuel: In this case, the court held that trespass to land is
committed where the defendant, without lawful justification:
o Enters upon the land in the plaintiff's possession.
o Remains upon such land.
o Directly places or projects a material object upon such land.

 Entick vs. Carrington: In this case, it was held that the slightest crossing of the
boundary of the plaintiff's land would also amount to trespass. The court was
of the view that "every invasion of property, be it so minute, is a trespass."
 Balogun vs. Alakija: In this case, the plaintiff was employed by the defendant
to collect rents on the defendant's behalf. One evening, after business hours, the
defendant went to the plaintiff's house to demand an account of the rent
collected. An argument ensued and in the end, the defendant was asked to
leave the premises of the plaintiff. The defendant refused to leave till about
after fifteen minutes of being told to leave.
The court held that in this case, the right of the defendant to stay on the land
had expired after being told to leave. By refusing to leave, his action constituted
trespass and he is therefore liable.
 Bernstein vs. Skyviews Ltd: In this case, it was held that the maxim – quic quid
plantatur solo solo cedit – does not apply in a situation in which the defendant's
aircraft flew several hundred feet above the plaintiff's roof. The court posited
that the maxim only extends to the point of reasonable use of airspace above
the land.
 Wollerton Ltd vs. Constain Ltd: In this case, where a crane of the defendant
swung over the plaintiff's roof at a distance of 50 ft., it was held to be trespass.
 Kelson vs. Imperial Tobacco Ltd: In this case, where a signboard on the
adjacent premises protruded a few feet above the plaintiff's premises, it was
held to be trespass.
Trespass to Chattel
 Armory vs. Delamirie: In this case, a boy found a jewel and asked a goldsmith
to value it. The goldsmith subsequently refused to return the jewel to the boy.
Thus the boy sued. The court held that although the boy was not the true
owner, the fact that he had possession of the goods gave him the right to sue
for trespass. Thus, the goldsmith could not raise the issue of jus tertii (better
title).
 Cresswell vs. Sirl: In this case, the plaintiff's dog was threatening the
defendant's sheep. Subsequently, the defendant shot the dog in order to protect
his sheep. In an action for trespass, it was held that the defendant's action was
justified since what he did was in protection of his property.
 North Central Wagon and Finance Co Ltd vs. Graham: In this case, the
defendant bought a car from the plaintiff on a hire purchase agreement.
However, the defendant defaulted in payment. According to the terms of the
contract, upon default, the plaintiff would be entitled to reclaim the goods. The
defendant, without informing the plaintiff, auctioned the car. Thus the
plaintiffs sued the auctioneer for conversion. The court held that the plaintiffs
could sue in conversion regardless of the fact that the plaintiff didn't have
actual possession of the car at the time. Since the right in the goods were already
vested in the plaintiff, there was no need for actual possession.
 Fouldes vs. Willoughby: In this case, the owner of two horses brought them
aboard a ferry. In an ensuing argument, the ferryman told the horse owner to
remove the horses but he refused. He then personally removed the horses and
led them ashore. The horse owner sued for conversion. Judgement was entered
in his favour at the trial court. On appeal, the court, in allowing the appeal held
that the act of leading the horses away from his ferry by the ferryman could not
be held to have amounted to conversion. This was due to the fact that the
ferryman did not intend to assert a dominion of ownership over the horses.
 Howard E Perry and Co Ltd vs. British Railway Board189: In this case, the
defendant, who were carriers, held the plaintiff's steel in depots. Subsequently,
there was a strike by steelworkers and due to this, the defendants refused to
release the plaintiff's steel to them. It was held that this amounted to conversion
on the defendant's part.
189 (1980) 1 WLR 1375

The Tort of Nuisance
Public Nuisance
 Amos vs. Shell BP Nigeria Ltd190: In this case, it was held by the court that a
private individual would have a right of action when it comes to public
nuisance if he can establish before the court that by the defendant’s action, he
has suffered particular damage over and above other members of the society.
 Rose vs. Miles191: In this case, the defendant wrongfully obstructed a public
navigable creek which obstructed the defendant from transporting his good
through the creek. This resulted in the plaintiff having to transport his goods
by land, causing him to incur extra costs. It was held that although the act of
the defendant was a public nuisance, since the plaintiff was able to prove that
he suffered loss over and above other members of the public, he had a right of
action against the defendant.
 Campbell vs. Paddington Corporation192: In this case, the plaintiff usually
rented out her room to those who wanted to watch the procession of King
Edward. However, the defendants unlawfully erected a structure which
blocked the view of the procession from the plaintiff’s house. As a result, the
plaintiff suffered financial loss since she couldn’t let out her room to those who
wanted to watch the procession.
It was held that in this instance, she had a right of action against the defendants
since she suffered injury over and above other members of the public due to
the public nuisance constituted by the defendants.
 Winterbottom vs. Derby193: In this case, it was held that there was no particular
damage suffered when the claimant suffered the same delay and interference
suffered by other members of the public.
Private Nuisance
 Malone vs. Laskey194: In this case, it was held that before an action can be
brought concerning private nuisance, it has to be concerning an interest in land.
 Ige vs. Taylor Woodrow Nig Ltd195: In this case, the defendant carried out pipe
driving due to the fact that it wanted to erect a structure in Lagos. Due to this
process of pipe driving, a large amount of vibration was usually caused. This
subsequently caused structural damage to the plaintiff’s house. As a result, the
house had to be pulled down. The court held that in this situation, the material
190 1974 4 ECSLR 486

191 (1815) 105 ER 773
192 (1911) 1 KB 869
193 1867 LR 2 Ex. 316
194 (1907) 2 Kb 141
195 (1963) LLR 140
damage suffered by the plaintiff is one that is quite sensible. Thus, the plaintiff
was held to have a right of action in private nuisance.
 Vanderpart vs. Mayfair Hotel Co Ltd196: In this case, the court observed that:
“Everybody is entitled as against his neighbour to the comfortable and
healthy enjoyment of the premises occupied by him, and in deciding
whether, in any particular case, his right has been interfered with and a
nuisance thereby caused, it is necessary to determine, whether the act
complained of is an inconvenience materially interfering with the
ordinary physical discomfort of human existence, not merely according to
elegant and dainty modes and habits of living, but according to plain and
sober and simple notions obtainable among English people ”
 Abiola vs. Ijoma197: In this case, both parties were neighbours but the
defendant was rearing poultry. In addition to the noise coming from the
poultry, the smell from the birds affected the plaintiff’s health. The court held
that in this situation, the interference with enjoyment was a substantial one.
Thus, giving the plaintiff a valid right of action under private nuisance.
 Moore vs. Nnado198: In this case, the court held that in determining the issue of
a disturbance, attention has to be paid to the surrounding environment. If the
environment is one that is usually noisy, liability would not arise if the
defendant made the normal amount of noise that is expected in such
environment.
 Bellew vs. Cement Co Ltd199: In this case, the defendants pleaded that they
were the only cement company in the country and their cement production,
which disturbed the plaintiff, was as a result of the increase in public demand
for houses. The court still held them liable regardless of this fact.
 Christie vs. Davey200: In this case, the defendant made unnecessary noise in
retaliation to the sound of the claimant’s music lessons. The court held him
liable since his action was actuated by malice.
Strict Liability: The Rule In Rylands Vs.

Fletcher
 Rylands vs. Fletcher: In the case, the defendant got some contractors to
construct a reservoir on his land. Due to the negligence of the contractors, water
leaked from the reservoir to the plaintiff’s coal mine located below the land,
196 1930 1 Ch. 138

197 (1970) 2 NLR 268
198 (1967) FNLR 156
199 1948 LR 61
200 (1893) 1 Ch 316
causing extensive damage to it. The conduct of the defendant didn’t appear to
come within the scope of any existing tort; leading to the formulation of the
rule in Rylands vs. Fletcher201. This rule is embodied in the pronouncement by
Blackburn J:
The person who for his own purposes, brings on his land and collects and
keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it at his own
peril and if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage
which is the natural consequence of its escape.
When the case got to appeal, Lord Cairns, in the House of Lords, added an extra
requirement: the thing brought must be a non-natural user of the land.
Bringing and Accumulation of the Thing to the Land

 Wilson vs. Waddell202: In this case, it was held that the defendant was not liable
for water that seeped into the plaintiff’s mines since the water was naturally
located in an underground reservoir.
 Giles vs. Walker203: In this case, it was held that there would be no liability for
vegetation that escapes if it grows naturally on the land in the form of weeds
and other uncultivated growth. However, there would be liability if the trees
were artificially planted.
Non-natural Use of the Land
 Rickards vs. Lothians204: In this case, Lord Moulton defined non-natural use
of the land as:
Some special use bringing with it increased danger to others, and must not
merely be the ordinary use of land or such a use as is proper for the general
benefit of the community.
Thus, in this case, it was held that the water pipe installations in buildings is a
natural user of the land, making the rule in Rylands vs. Fletcher inapplicable.
There must be an Escape

 Read vs. Lyons205: In this case, escape was defined by Lord Simmons as the
escape from a place in which the defendant has control or occupation of the
land to a place over which he has no control or occupation.
 Ponting vs. Noakes206: In this case, a horse reached out and ate a poisonous leaf
from a tree in the defendant’s land. This resulted in the death of the horse. The
201 1866 L.R 1 Exch 265

202 (1876) 2 App. Cas. 95
203 (1890) 62 LT 933
204 (1913) Ac 263 @ p 279
205 (1947) AC 156
206 (1894) 2 QB 281
court held that there was no escape since the tree did not extend past the
defendant’s boundary.
Defences to the rule in Rylands vs. Fletcher

 Dunn vs. Birmingham Canal Co207: In this case, the plaintiff knowingly
constructed a mine below the defendant’s canal. It was held that since he knew
of the danger of constructing beneath the canal but he still went ahead, he had
courted liability and as such would not have any remedy.
 Nichols vs. Marshland208: In this case, the defendant had been collecting an
artificial pool for years by diverting water from a stream. Subsequently, a very
violent rain fell which destroyed the pools and caused water to destroy the
plaintiff’s bridges. The court held that there was no liability since the harm was
caused by an unexpected natural event.
 Perry vs. Kendricks Transport Ltd209: In this case, the defendant was not liable
for damage that resulted from the acts of little children who threw a lighted
match into the petrol tank of a vehicle.
 Box vs. Jubb210: In this case, the owners of a reservoir were not liable for
damage caused to the plaintiff’s land from the overflowing of the reservoir.
This was due to the fact that it occurred because a third party emptied its
reservoir into the plaintiff’s reservoir.
Application of the Rule in Rylands vs. Fletcher in Nigeria
 Umudje vs. Shell BP Petroleum Development Co of Nigeria Ltd 211: In this
case, during the course of oil exploration by the defendant, it blocked a stream
from flowing; interfering with the fishing rights of the plaintiff. Also, the waste
oil accumulated by the defendant escaped to the plaintiff’s land, causing
damage.
The court held that the rule in Ryland vs. Fletcher didn’t apply in the case of
blocking the stream since the water from the stream didn’t escape to the
plaintiff’s land. On the second issue of oil spillage, the defendant was held
liable since the waste oil, a non-natural user of the land, was accumulated and
it escaped to the plaintiff’s land, causing damage.
207 1872 LR 7 QB 244

208 (1876) 2 Ex D1
209 1956 1 WLR 85
210 1879 4 Ex D 76
211 1975 11 SC 155
Strict Liability: Liability For Animals
Scienter Action (Liability for Dangerous Animals)
 Behrens vs. Bertram Mills Circus212: In this case, the owner of a tamed elephant
was held to be liable for the acts of the elephant in attacking the plaintiff. This
was regardless of the fact that the elephant had never attacked anyone in the
past.
 Hudson vs. Robert: In this case, the plaintiff was gored by the defendant’s bull
because the bull was irritated by the red handkerchief which the plaintiff wore
on his neck. The defendant was able to prove that the plaintiff knew of this
vicious tendency. Hence the defendant was held to be liable.
 Daryani vs. Njoku213: In this case, the plaintiff had been attacked and injured
by the defendant’s dog. This had occurred on a previous occasion and the
matter was reported to the defendant’s wife. It was held that since the wife
knew of the vicious tendency, she was meant to have told the defendant about
it. Thus, the defendant was held liable for the animal’s act.
 Glansville vs. Sutton214: In this case, the defendant’s dog attacked and injured
the plaintiff. There was no evidence of previous attack by the animal, hence the
defendant was held to be free of liability.
 Burckle vs. Holmes215: In this case, the defendant’s cat entered the plaintiff’s
land and killed fourteen of his birds. It was held that there was no liability on
the defendant’s part due to the fact that the animal was acting according to its
natural instinct.
 Rands vs. McNeill216: In this case, it was held that zoo keepers and animal
trainers had no remedy in scienter action if they were attacked by the animals
with which they were dealing.
Cattle Trespass
 Cox vs. Burbridge217: In this case, it was held that liability in cattle trespass
would generally arise against the defendant even though he was not negligent
in dealing with the animals.
 Tillet vs. Ward218: In this case, it was held that there would be no liability under
cattle trespass if animals being led on the highway stray unto adjacent land.
This is due to the fact that the straying of animals from the highway is
considered as a normal hazard associated with leading cattle on the highway.
212 1957 2 QB 1
213 1965 2 All NLR 53
214 1928 1 KB 571
215 (1926) 2 KB 125
216 (1955) 1 QB 253
217 1863 143 ER 171
218 (1882) 10 QBD 17
 Manton vs. Brocklebank219: In this case, it was held that it is only the person
that has interest in the land that can sue under the cattle trespass.
 Singleton vs. Williamson220: In this case, it was held that the defence of
plaintiff’s default would apply in a situation in which the plaintiff neglected to
build a fence round his property, thus allowing for cattle to stray there and
cause damage.
 Smith vs. Stone221: In this case, it was held that the defence of the act of a
stranger would apply in a situation in which a third party drove the cattle onto
the plaintiff’s land.
Liability for Animals in Nigeria

 Uzoahia vs. Atu222: In this case, a cow belonging to the plaintiff was attacked
by tse tse flies and as a result, it wandered into the plaintiff’s village where it
injured a number of people. As a result, the plaintiff and some other villagers
cornered and killed the cow. The court held that the defence of necessity would
avail the defendant since they were protecting themselves from the animal.
Other Torts in Liability for Animals

 Draper vs. Hodder223: In this case, an infant was attacked by a pack of terrier
dogs belonging to the defendant. The plaintiff could not come under scienter
action because they couldn’t prove that the defendant had previous
knowledge. They also couldn’t bring an action under cattle trespass because
dogs are not considered as cattle.
The plaintiff was however successful in bringing an action under negligence.
He contended that the defendants should have known that terrier dogs moving
about in packs would be dangerous and he should have taken steps to prevent
them from doing damage.
 Manton vs. Brockle Bank224: In this case, it was held that there was trespass to
chattel in a situation in which the defendant trained animals to steal.
 Abiola vs. Ijoma225: In this case, it was held that when a person collects a large
number of animals that pose discomfort to other members of the society, there
would be liability under the tort of nuisance.
219 1923 2 KB 141

220 1861 158 E.R 533
221 1647 82 ER 344
222 1975 5 ECSLR 139
223 1972 2 Q.B 556
224 1923 2 KB 212
225 1970 2 All NLR 268
Introduction to the Tort Of Defamation
Defamation and the Standard of Right Thinking Members of the
Society
 Egbuna vs. Amalgamated Press of Nig. Ltd226: In this case, the court quoted
Winfield and Jolowicz227 thus:
The court usually rules out on the one hand, persons who are so lax or cynical
that they would think none the worst of any man whatever was imputed to
him and on the other hand, persons who are so censorious as to regard trivial
accusations, even if they were true, as lowering another’s reputation, or who
are so hasty as to infer the worst meaning from an ambiguous statement …
The ordinary citizen is neither unusually suspicious nor usually naïve and
he does not always interpret the meaning of words as would a lawyer for he
is not inhibited by a knowledge of the rules of construction.
 Byrne vs. Dean228: In this case, the two parties were members of a golf club.
The claimant alleged that the defendant had defamed him by putting up a
notice in the golf club that it was the defendant who reported some illicit
activities going on in the golf club. The claimant contended that this reduced
his estimation in the eyes of members of the golf club. The court held that this
was not defamatory because the alleged statement was only defamatory in the
eyes of members of the golf club. To ordinary members of the society, such
notice would even have been looked up to with admiration.
Libel and Slander

Libel
 Sketch Publishing Co Ltd vs. Ajagbe Mokeferi229: In this case, it was held by
the court that one of the distinctive marks of libel is the fact that the defamatory
statement remains in a permanent form long after they were made. As a result,
they could be referred to in future, causing harm to the claimant or his family.
This would not have effect only if the defendant withdraws the publication
from circulation or destroys them by an order of the court.
 Nthenda vs. Alade230: In this case, the claimant sued a newspaper for
publishing defamatory material concerning him. The defendant contended that
there was no liability until the claimant could prove the damage he suffered.
226 1967 All NLR 27

227 Winfield and Jolowicz, Law of Torts.
228 (1937) 1 KB 818
229 (1989) 1 NWLR pt 100 678
230 (1974) 4 ECSLR 470
The court held that in an action for libel, damage doesn't have to be proved
before liability would arise.
Slander
 Yesufu vs. Gbadamosi: In this case, the court held that in slander, the alleged
defamatory words and the damages caused must be pleaded and proved in
evidence. What this means is that slander is not actionable per se.
 Coward vs. Wellington231: In this case, it was held that slander would only
become actionable per se when it inputs the commission of a crime, contagious
diseases, alleges the unchastity of a woman or damages a person in the trade
or profession which he carries out.
 Agoaka vs. Ejiofor: In this case, the defendant, at a village gathering, accused
the claimant of stealing his cocoyams. Although this was a slander, it was held
to be actionable per se since it alleges that the claimant committed the offence
of theft.
Vulgar Abuse
 Bakare vs. Ishola232: In this case, while an argument was ensuing between the
parties, the defendant called the claimant a thief and an ex-convict. The court
held that there was no liability because the vulgar abuse was altered in the heat
of an argument.
 Ibeabu vs. Uba233: In this case, the claimant went to console the defendant
whose goods had been stolen. While trying to console the defendant, the
defendant alleged that the claimant was among those that stole her property.
The court held that the defendant was liable for defamation because if vulgar
abuse is uttered in the absence of any argument, then it would be regarded as
defamatory.
 Benson vs West African Pilot Ltd234: In this case, the defendant newspaper
wrote that the claimant was an "idiot and a simpleton". The court held that
written vulgar abuse is defamatory and as such, this vulgar abuse was
actionable.
Elements of the Tort of Defamation

The Words were Defamatory
 Akintola vs. Anyiam235: In this case, the defendant published a booklet which
stated that the claimant hailed from Ilesha. Meanwhile, the claimant was from
231 (1839) 173 ER 234

232 (1959) WNLR 106
233 (1972) 2 ECSLR 194 @ 195
234 (1966) NMLR 3
235 (1961) 1 All NLR 529
Ogbomosho. Although the statement wasn't defamatory on its face, to those
who knew the claimant, it would be believed that he lied about his origin. Thus
it was regarded as a legal innuendo.
 Mutual Aid Society vs. Akerele236: In this case, the defendant advertised that
the claimant's house was for auction by virtue of a mortgage. This was held to
be defamatory popular innuendo because it meant that the plaintiff wasn't
credit worthy.
The Words Referred to the Plaintiff

 The Service Press Ltd vs. Azikiwe237: In this case, the claimant sued the
defendant newspaper for defamatory statement concerning a Ben Azikiwe. The
court held that Ben Azikiwe did not refer to Nnamdi Azikiwe, hence the
statement didn't refer to the claimant.
 Dafe vs Tsewinor238: In this case, defamatory statements referring to a minister
from Aboh were held to refer to the plaintiff, who was the only minister from
Aboh in that government.
The Statement was Published

 Okotcha vs Olumese239: In this case, the plaintiff wrote to the police requesting
a character certificate. The defendant, who was working in Central C.I.D, sent
a certificate to the plaintiff which stated incorrectly that the plaintiff had been
twice convicted. The court held that this was not defamation since the
publication was to the plaintiff himself. Also, the court held that the subsequent
act of showing it to a third part by the plaintiff did not constitute defamation
on the defendant's part since it wasn't the defendant that published it to a third
party.
Other Types of Defamation

Defamation of a Class or Group
 Zik Enterprise Ltd vs. Awolowo: In this case, the court held that an article
captioned “Action Group Threatens Crisis to win over Government – Secret
behind Plan Disclosed” was in no way defamatory to the claimant since it
referred to a broad category of people, the Action Group.
 Dalumo vs. The Sketch Publishing Co Ltd: In this case, the court held that the
publication of the defendant which implicated the top officials of the Nigerian
236 (1966) NMLR 267

237 (1951) 14 WACA 176
238 (1967) NMLR 331
239 1967) FNLR 175
Airways raised liability in defamation. This was due to the fact that it was an
easily identifiable group of persons to which the claimant belonged.
Unintentional Defamation
 Hulton and Co vs. Jones: In this case, the defendant published a fictional story
about the adulterous exploits of a character named ‘Artemus Jones’. A person
actually named Artemus Jones sued the defendant for libel. The court held that
the defendant was liable despite the fact that the use of the name was quite
accidental.
 Cassidy vs. Daily Mirror Newspaper Ltd: In this case, the defendant
newspaper captioned a picture “Mr Corrigan the race horse owner with Miss
X, who was just engaged”. Mrs Corrigan brought an action for libel against the
newspapers claiming that those who knew her and read the newspaper would
think that she was involved in an unlawful cohabitation with Mr Corrigan,
while in reality they were married. Her action for libel succeeded.
Innocent Dissemination
 Vizetelly vs. Mudies’s Select Library’s Limited240: In this case, the court
established the following as the conditions in which the defence of innocent
dissemination would stand:
o The defendant did not know that the publication complained of contained a libel;
o The defendant had no grounds to suppose that it was likely to contain
defamatory matter; and
o The absence of knowledge was not due to any negligence on the defendant's part.
Defences to Defamation
 Onwuchekwa vs. Onovo241: In this case, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff
was a lunatic. This was verified by a senior consultant at a popular psychiatric
hospital. It was held that the defence of truth applied.
 Dim vs. African Newspapers Ltd (1990) NWLR (pt 139):
240 (1900) 2 QB 170

241 (1974) 12 CCHCJ 1919
Malicious Prosecution
Vicarious Liability
Negligence
Sales of Goods
General Overview of the Sale of Goods
Essentials of a Contract of Sale
 Amadi Thomas vs. Thomas Aplin & Co Ltd242: In this case, the goods were to
be delivered at a particular time but the seller didn't comply with the time
stipulated. The court ruled that the time of delivery is of the essence. Thus the
failure to stick to the time provided by the contract was a breach of the contract
of sale.
Warranties and Mere Representations

 Hopkins vs Tanquery243: In this case, the plaintiff was inspecting a horse a day
before the auction. The owner of the horse told him that there was no problem
with the horse and as a result, the plaintiff bought it. When there were issues,
the plaintiff sued. The court held that the statement by the defendant was a
mere representation since it was not made during the course of a contract.
 Couchman vs Hill244: In this case, in a written description of a heifer for
auction, the seller described it as unserved. When the plaintiff bought it, he
discovered it was untrue. The court held that this was a warranty because the
seller made the statement in the written description for the auction, making it
a term of the transaction.
Ownership and Passage of Property

 Akoshile vs. Ogidan245: In this case, the defendant bought a stolen car from a
third party. He subsequently sold the car to the plaintiff. When the third party
242 (1972) 1 All NLR @409

243 (1864) 15 QB 611
244 (1947) KB 554
245 1950 19 NLR 87
was arrested, the car was collected from the plaintiff by the police. The plaintiff
subsequently sued for the price he paid to the defendant. The court held that
the sale of the car to the plaintiff by the defendant was in breach of the condition
S.12 (1) of the Sales of Goods Act. This was due to the fact that the defendant
didn't have a title to the goods since they were stolen. Thus, he could not
transfer same.
 Pearson vs. Rose and Young Ltd246: In this case, the plaintiff delivered his car
to a mercantile agent in order to just get offers; not to sell the car. The agent
intended to sell the car as soon as possible and to embezzle the funds. Thus, he
tricked the plaintiff into leaving the registration book with him. While the
owner/plaintiff was away, the agent sold the car to a third party.
In court, it was held that although the agent was in possession of the car and
the registration book, the possession of the registration book was without the
owner's consent; contrary to the provision of S. 2(1) of the Factor’s Act. Thus,
he couldn't validly sell the car since a car can't be sold without its registration
book.
 Lee vs. Bayes 1856 18 CB 599 at p. 601: In this case, Jarvis J defined a market
overt as an open, public and legally constituted market.
 Lewis vs. Averay: In this case, a rogue misrepresented himself as a popular
actor to the plaintiff in order to purchase a car from him. The car was purchased
with a cheque which later bounced. The rogue sold the car to the defendant
who bought it in good faith. After the fraud was discovered, the plaintiff sued
the defendant for the car.
It was held that the title which the rogue possessed after duping the plaintiff
was a voidable title since the owner validly sold it to the rogue but due to fraud.
According to the provision of S. 23 of the Sales of Goods Act, goods with
voidable title bought in good faith would result in a valid sale. Since the car
was bought in good faith by the defendant from a person who had a voidable
title – the rogue – he had acquired a valid title247.
(1950) 2 All ER 1027

246
This case can be distinguished from the case of Akoshile vs. Ogidan because in Akoshile vs Ogidan, the
247
goods in question were stolen, making the title to it void. In this present case, Lewis vs. Averay, the title
was validly transferred by the owner to the rogue although it was a fraud; making the title voidable.
Sale by Description, Fitness for Purpose
and Sale by Sample
Sale by Description
 Varley vs Whipp248: In this case, the plaintiff sold a reaping machine to the
defendant. The machine was described to be about a year old and used to cut
about 50 to 60 acres. On getting the machine, it was discovered to be very old
and the defendant returned it. The plaintiff sued for the contract price.
The court held that the defendant could reject the goods since they didn't fit the
description provided and were a breach of condition as provided by S.13 of the
SOGA.
Transfer of Property and Risk

Transfer of Property
 Underwood Ltd vs. Burgh Castle: In this case, the plaintiffs intended to sell a
condensing machine to the defendants. The machine weighed 30 tons and was
bolted to the ground. Thus the machine had to be dismantled and transferred
to the defendant. After dismantling the machine, as it was about being loaded
on the railway, it got spoilt. The court – by applying the provision of S. 18 of
the Sales of Goods Act – held that property in the goods had not yet passed to
the defendant since the goods were not yet in a complete deliverable state when
the machine was spoilt.
 Poole vs Smith Car Sale249: In this case, the plaintiff gave the defendant a car
on a “sale or return” agreement. The defendant did not return the car until three
months after the plaintiff gave him and the car was in a dilapidated state. The
court held that a reasonable time had elapsed and as a result, the defendant
could not return the car.
Transfer of Risk
 Wardar's Import and Export Ltd vs W. Norwood & Sons250: In this case, X had
1500 cartons of frozen kidneys in Y's warehouse. He sold 600 cartons to Z and
gave him a delivery note addressed to Y. When Z's carrier arrived at the
248 1900 1 QB 513

249 1962 2 All ER
250 (1968) 2 WLR 1440
warehouse, he saw that the 600 cartons were already out on the pavement. Y
accepted the delivery note from the carrier. At 8 am, loading started, however,
the carrier didn't turn on the refrigerator in his van till 10 am by which time the
cartons on the pavement were dripping.
Loading was concluded at 12 pm and the carrier signed a receipt stating that
he had received the goods in soft condition. On delivery to Z, it was found out
that the goods were not of merchantable quality and thus Z refused to pay.
In court it was held that property in the goods passed when Y, a third party,
acknowledged that the goods were for Z by accepting the delivery note. Thus,
since property had already passed to the buyer when the damage to the goods
occurred, the risk would have to be borne by the buyer.
Rules of Delivery
Delivery of Wrong Quantity or Mixed Goods
 Mustapha and Co vs. NCEI251: In this case, the terms of the contract
provided inter alia for "delivery from factory January 1954". Part of the goods
left the factory in January 1954 and the remainder left early the following
month as a result of which the buyer refused to take any part of the contract.
The court held that the word "delivery" was to be construed in its normal as
distinct from its legal or technical sense and that it meant that all the goods
should leave the factory during January 1954. Since this had not been complied
with, the defendant could not be compelled to accept even that part which
arrived in January but could reject the whole because the contract was not
severable.
Delivery of Goods by Instalments
 Mapleflock Co Ltd vs. Universal Furniture Product Ltd252: In this case, parties
entered into a contract for the sale of 100 tonnes of rag flocks. Delivery was to
be made at the rate of three loads a week and each delivery to be separately
paid for. The first 15 loads delivered were satisfactory but the 16th was not. In
spite of this, the buyer took four more deliveries and then sought to repudiate
the contract.
251 (1955) 21 NLR p 69

252 (1934) 1 KB p.148:
The court observed inter alia:
"...The true test would generally be the relation – in fact of the default – to the
whole purpose of the contract. The main test to be considered are first, the
ratio quantitatively which the breach bears to the contract as a whole.
Secondly, the degree of probability or improbability that such a breach will
be repeated..."
Thus, from the above, considering that 1 out of 20 instalments was defective,
the ratio is insignificant. Also, the probability that there would be a repeat of
defective goods is very little since only one had been defective so far. Thus, the
buyer cannot repudiate the whole contract. Rather, he only has a right to reject
the defective instalment.
 Regent OGH vs. Francessco of Jenmy Ltd253: In this case, men suits were to be
delivered by instalments and the size of each instalment/consignment was left
to the plaintiff’s (the seller's) discretion. One out of twenty two instalments was
delivered short of one suit and the buyer sought to repudiate the whole
contract.
It was held that in this circumstance, the buyer could not repudiate.
Comparing S.30 (1) & 31(2) the court observed that:
"... if a misdelivered consignment is rejected, the result is to create a short

delivery. S.30(1) and 31(2) in this respect, are not mutually consistent, one
must yield to the other and it seems to me that the business sense of the
contract of sales requires enough flexible provisions of S.31(2) to be applied
in preference to those of S.30(1)..."
Thus, considering the circumstances of the case, it was held that the buyer
could only reject the defective consignment and not the whole contract.
Delivery by Carrier
 Nads Imperial Pharmacy vs. Siemgluse254: In this case, under a contract of sale,
goods were sent by S in Hamburg to M in Lagos. The goods arrived in Lagos
and M was notified. When M went for collection, it was discovered that the
goods were lost through some unexplained cause and so M sued S for the goods
or the price paid. The court held that according to the provisions of S.32 (1)
SOGA, delivery of goods to a carrier is prima facie delivery to the buyer. Thus,
in this present case, delivery to the ship, who acted as the carrier, was
253 (1981) 3 ALL E.R @ 327

254 (1989) NLR
considered as delivery to M. Since risk passes with transfer of property, M
would have to bear the risk since they have been prima facie delivered to him.
Acceptance of Delivered Goods

 Ruben vs. Faire Bros Co Ltd255: In this case, the buyer after completing the
purchase of the goods, told the seller to deliver the goods to a third party. When
the seller did so, the third party rejected them on the ground that the goods
were not in conformity with the contract. The court held – according to the
provisions of S. 35 of the SOGA – that considering the fact that the goods were
already purchased before delivery to the sub-purchaser, selling them to a sub-
purchaser is an act inconsistent with the seller’s right and is thus acceptance.
 Hammer and Barrow vs. Coca-Cola256: In this case, Coca-Cola bought 200
thousand yoyos from the plaintiff to be used in an advertising campaign. One
of the terms of the contract was that of the 200 thousand, 85,000 would be
delivered to the Northern bottling Company’s premises in Auckland. When the
85,000 yoyos were delivered, it was discovered that about 80 percent of the
yoyos were defective. Coca-Cola thus refused acceptance of the goods.
The plaintiff company thus sued for the contract price. They relied on the
provision of S.35 that acceptance is deemed to have taken place when the buyer
does, in relation to the goods, an act inconsistent with the right of the seller.
Thus, according to them, Coca-Cola in delivering the goods to a third party had
accepted the goods.
The court held that this doesn’t apply in this situation. This is due to the fact
that delivering the goods to the third party was part of the contract of sale.
Thus, the act of the seller in delivering them to the third party was synonymous
to delivering them to the buyer. Therefore, the acceptance of the goods would
be subject to the right of the buyer to inspect them for defects as stated
under S.34.
Cheque as a Means of Payment

What is a Cheque?
 Ademoye vs. State257: In this case, the court, in defining cheque, adopted the
definition provided in the Black’s Law Dictionary 9th Edition which defines a
cheque as a
255 1949 1 KB 254

256 (1962) NZLR 723
257 (2014)
"…draft document signed by the maker or drawer, drawn on a bank, payable
on demand and unlimited in negotiability…”
Effect of the Wrongful Dishonour of a Cheque
 Mai vs. STB Ltd258: In this case, the appellant, a customer of the respondent
bank asked the bank to pay a cheque to his daughter and another person.
Although the customer had enough in his account, the bank dishonoured the
cheque. On further enquiries it was discovered that the dishonouring of the
cheque was due to a 'stop-order payment' request by Standard Construction
Company, another of the bank's customers. The appellant thus sued the bank
and requested for damages. At the trial court, judgement was entered in favour
of the respondent, hence the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.
The court of appeal unanimously allowed the appeal. It held that the
relationship between a banker and customer is a contractual one and the duty
to honour cheques is part of the contract. If the customer has enough funds in
his account and the bank, for an unjustifiable reason, refuses to honour his
cheque, it is a breach of contract which entitles the customer to a claim for
damages.
 Allied Bank Nigeria Ltd vs. Akubueze259: In this case, the court, per Iguh JSC
stated:
“…a bank is bound to honour a cheque issued by its customer if the customer
has enough funds to satisfy the amount payable on the cheque in respect of
the relevant account. Refusal to honour the cheque would amount to a breach
of contract which would render the banker liable in damages.”
Measurement of Damages
 Hirat Balogun vs National Bank of Nigeria260: In this case, the bank did not
honour the appellant’s cheque when there was enough credit in the account.
The appellant was a lawyer and the court regarded her as a person in trade.
The High Court only granted the appellant nominal damages. On appeal, the
Supreme Court held that the appellant was entitled to special damages and did
not have to prove them because the court regarded her as a person in trade
since she is a lawyer.
258 (2008)
259 (1997) 6 NWLR pt 509
260 (1978) 3 SC 155
The Law of Hire Purchase
Hire Purchase in Nigeria
History of Hire Purchase
 Helby vs. Mathews261: This was the first case to give judicial recognition to
Hire Purchase. In this case, the plaintiff gave possession of a piano to a third
party. The title in the piano was to pass to the third party upon the payment of
certain instalments. Before the instalments were completely paid, the third
party pledged the piano to the defendant. The plaintiff/owner thus sued to
reclaim possession of the piano.
The House of Lords held that until the instalments were completely paid, the
title in the goods still resided in the plaintiff, thus the third party could not
validly transfer same to the defendant by the way of a pledge.
Hire Purchase under the Common Law

 Bentworth Finance Nig Ltd vs. DC Bank Transport Ltd 262: In this case, the
court held that a provision for punctual payment meant that the instalments
must be paid on the stipulated date. A one day delay in the payment could be
regarded as breach of the agreement, entitling the owner to retrieve the goods.
This is regardless of the fact that it was the last instalment that was delayed.
 Amusa & Anor vs. Bentworth Finance Nig Ltd263: In this case, the court held
inter alia that where a hirer exercises his option of terminating the agreement,
he cannot complain that the minimum payment clause is a penalty.
261 1895 AC 471

262 1968 3 ALR Comm. 52
263 1966 NWLR 276
Obligations of the Parties in a Contract
of Hire Purchase
Obligations/Duties of the Owner
 Anoka vs. SCOA Warri264: This case concerns the owner’s obligation to ensure
that the goods are fit for their purpose. The hirer returned a vehicle due to
defect in its engine. The court held that the implied term of fitness for purpose
would not be applicable here due to the fact that the defect was something
which the owner couldn’t easily discern. He couldn’t have ordinarily known of
a fault in the engine unless he took the engine apart.
 Ogwu vs. Leventis Motors Ltd265: In this case, the agreement contained a
clause which excluded the defendant from any warranty or obligation
concerning the fitness and quality of the vehicle. However, when the vehicle
was supplied, it was not the same vehicle that was examined by the hirer. The
court held that in this case, the exemption went against the fundamental basis
of the contract, hence it could not apply.
Obligations/Duties of the Hirer

 Animashawun vs. CFAO266: this case concerns the buyer’s duty to pay
instalment as and when due. In this case, the hirer defaulted in payment and
the owner repossessed the goods. The court held that since the hirer had failed
to pay his instalments at the required time, the owner had the right to repossess
the goods.
 Bentworth Finance Ltd vs. Salami267: This case concerns the buyer’s duty to
redeliver the goods when the transaction falls through. In this case, the goods
were stolen; making it impossible for the hirer to redeliver the goods. The court
held that the theft of the goods has excused the hirer from having to redeliver
the goods.
Features of a Hire Purchase Contract

 Williams vs. UAC Ltd268: In this case, the court held that if the owner recovers
– from the sale of the goods – an amount more than the debt owed by the hirer,
he is not bound to return the balance to the hirer.
264 (1955/56) WNLR 113

265 (1963) NNLR 115
266 (1960) LLR 113
267 (1960) 2 ALR
268 (1937) 13 NLR 134
 Incar Motors Nigeria Ltd vs. Elias Bus Transport Ltd269: In this case, the court
held that if the amount which the owner recovers from the sale is lesser than
the debt, he cannot also recover the balance from the hirer.
Formalities of a Higher Purchase

Agreement
Effect of Non-Compliance with the Formalities in the Hire Purchase Act
 Adelabari vs. Nigeria Motors ltd270: In this case, the agreement of hire
purchase didn’t completely follow the provisions of S. 2 of the Hire Purchase
Act. The court held that due to the fact that the agreement was concluded
before the existence of the Hire Purchase Act 1965, the consequence provided
for in S. 2 (2) could not apply.
The Court’s Discretion

 Yusuf & Anor vs. Oyetunde & anor271: the owners didn’t state the cash price
of the vehicles and the interest rate – contrary to the provisions of the Hire
Purchase Act – before entering into the contract. Subsequently, the hirer
defaulted in paying instalments, prompting the owners to seize the goods and
sell them. When the case got to court, the owners contended that mere non-
compliance with the statutory provisions did not constitute any prejudice to
the hirer. The thus enjoined the court to make use of its discretionary powers
as granted in the proviso to S. 2 (2) of the Act. The court was of the opposite
view and thus, the actions of the owner was reverted.
Illiterate Hirers
 SCOA Zaria vs. Okon272: in this case, the court defined an illiterate as someone
who doesn’t understand the meaning and effect of the document that he is
signing. The court also defined an illiterate as someone who, though literate in
another language, is not literate in the language of the written document.
 Igbajume vs. Bentworth Finance Ltd273: In this case, the court held that the
writer of a document must always explain the purport of the document to the
illiterate before the illiterate signs the document.
269 (1970) NCLR

270 (1974) 5 SC
271 1975 NNLR 116
272 (1960) NNLR
273 (1965/66) MWNLR p. 132
Excluded Terms in a Hire Purchase
Agreement
Term Granting the Owner the Right to Enter the Hirer’s Property to
Seize the Goods
 United Dominions Corporation (Nig) Ltd vs. Ladipo274: In this case, the owner
was held liable for damages due to his wrongful entry of the hirer’s premises
in order to seize the goods.
Term Relieving the Owner from Liability when his Agent Breaches the
Agreement
 Campbell Discount Co Ltd vs. Gall275: In this case, there was a clause of such
nature. The English court in using the provision of the English Act of 1968276
rendered such clause null and void.
Implied Terms in a Hire Purchase

Agreement
Implied Warranty of Quiet Possession
 Udekwu vs Abosi277: In this case, it was held that there was no interference
with quiet possession when a car, the subject of the hire purchase agreement,
was improperly impounded by custom officers for alleged failure to pay import
duties.
Implied Condition that the Owner has the Right to Sell the Goods
 Microbeads AG vs. Vinhurst Road Markings Ltd278: In this case, the court held
that the seller of the goods would still be liable under this provision even if he
innocently believes that he has the right to sell the goods and it turns out that
he doesn’t have the right to sell the goods.
274 (1971) 1 All NLR 102

275 (1961) 24 MLR
276 An equivalent provision to S. 3 (e) of the Hire Purchase Act
277 (1974) ECSLR 298
278 (1905) 1 WLR 218 @ p.221
Implied Condition that the Goods are of Merchantable Quality
 Karsales Harrow Ltd vs. Wallis279: In this case, when the hirer inspected the
car, it was in good condition. However, when the car was delivered to him
about a month later. It was discovered to be in a deplorable condition. The court
held that in a hire purchase agreement, there is a duty on the owner to deliver
the goods in the condition they were when the hirer inspected them.
Ownership and Transfer of Title in a

Contract of Hire Purchase
Transfer of Title
 Helby vs. Mathews, Lord Herschel stated:
A person who is in charge of a piano under such agreement (hire purchase
agreement) … is no more its apparent owner than if he had merely hired it,
and in the latter case, anyone taking it as a security should have no claim to
hold it against the owner.
From the above, without the purchase of the goods by the hirer, the agreement
is still considered a contract of hire. Hence, the goods still belong to the owner
of the goods and the hirer cannot validly transfer the title in the goods to a third
party.
Exceptions to the Rule of Valid Transfer of Title

 Astley Industrial Trust Limited vs. Miller280: This case concerns a situation in
which goods have been given to a mercantile agent under a hire purchase
agreement. The court held that this exception would apply where the
mercantile agent received the goods in his capacity as mercantile agent and the
owner consented to the possession of the goods in the capacity of a mercantile
agent.
 Bishop Gate Finance Corporation vs. Transport Brakers Ltd281 This case
concerns the sale of hired goods in a market overt according to the usage of the
market. In the case, the hirer of a motor vehicle drove it to Maidstone, a place
reputed for the sale of motor vehicles, and sold it to a third party who bought
it in good faith. When the owner tried to reclaim the vehicle, it was held that a
valid title had been transferred because the sale was in a market overt.
 Butterworth vs. Kingsway Motor & Ors282: In this case, a hirer sold a car before
completing the hirer purchase payment. The car was resold a number of times
279 (1956) 2 All ER 866

280 1968 2 All ER 36
281 1949 2 K.B
282 1954 2 All ER 694
till the defendant sold it to the plaintiff. Subsequently, the owner of the car
informed the plaintiff of his interest in the car since the hire purchase
instalment was not completely paid. The plaintiff thus sued the defendant for
selling a car with invalid title to him. The court held, in an obiter, that the
plaintiff could easily have paid the owner the remaining sum of the hire
purchase instalment and recovered it from the initial hirer.
 Whitley vs. Hilt283 This case concerns a situation in which the hirer transfers
his option to purchase to another party. In this case, the hirer, under a hire
purchase agreement, sold a piano to a purchaser. The owners then instituted
an action in court. Before the commencement of the action, the purchaser
completed the payment of the hire purchase price. The court held that the hirer
had successfully transferred his option of purchase.
The Hirer’s Right to Determine a

Contract of Hire Purchase
Minimum Payment Clause in Hire Purchase Agreements
 Associated Distributors Ltd vs. Hall284: In this case, the hirer returned the
bicycle he hired after paying just one instalment. There was a minimum
payment clause stating that upon termination of the agreement, the hirer
would pay half of the total hire purchase sum. The court held that since this
was the agreement of the parties and it didn’t amount to a penalty, the hirer
has to pay this sum of money.
 Coonden Engineering Co Ltd vs. Stanford285 In this case, after the hirer
defaulted on the payment of instalments, the owner seized the goods and sued
under the minimum payment clause. The clause provided that in the case of
termination, the hirer would pay a hundred percent compensation. The court
held that this was an instance of a penalty and thus, the minimum payment
clause could not be applicable.
283 1918 2 KB 808

284 1938 2 K.B 83
285 1953 1 QB 86

dJetLawyer Casebook

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

dJetLawyer Casebook

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

www.djetlawyer.

Copyright © 2017 by Olanrewaju Olamide, www.djetlawyer.com

But no part of it may be altered, plagiarized, sold, loaned or

For more information and questions, contact

General Overview of the Sale of Goods ......................................................................... 81

Bird vs. Jones........................................53 Couchman vs Hill ............................... 68

F Hughes vs. Lord Advocate ................ 50

M Ltd vs. Graham ................................ 57

Olubunmi Okogie vs. AG Lagos State R vs Doughty ........................................ 36

Rylands vs. Fletcher ..........48, 59, 60, 61 Ubahar vs State ................................... 34

T Whitley vs. Hilt ................................... 79

UBA vs. Tejumola and Sons ...............7

1 (2011) 5 NWLR (pt 1239)

10 (1866) LRL 1 Exch. 109

27 (1886) 32 Ch. D. 267

32 (1602) 5 Co. Rep. 117a

The Intention to Enter Into Legal

47 (1834) 4 M & W 399

51 (1848) 2 Ch. 774

Mistake as a Vitiating Element Of A

55 (Unreported) High Court of Western State Suit No W/74/70 1971.

62 [1983] Com LR 158

Misrepresentation as a Vitiating Element

74 (2007) NWLR PT 1066

Judicial Review in the First Phase of

Judicial Review in the Second Republic

Judicial Review in the Second Phase of

76 (1982) NSCC @221

Judicial Review In The Fourth Republic

85 (2003) 10 NWLR (Pt. 828) 307

86 (2007) 4 NWLR (pt.1025) 423.

87 8 NWLR 2007 PT 1036 289

88 (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 520) 1387 at 1397 paras. GH.

The Interpretation of Statutes

The Nigerian Customary Courts

89 (1990) NWLR PT 144

The Distinction between Criminal and

92 (1987) vol 2 NSCC

Historical Evolution Of Nigerian

94 (1992) NWLR pt 236

 R vs Osoba98: In this case, the appellant was convicted on charges of theft. He

Elements of an Offence (Actus Reus and

98 (1961) Vol 1 ANLR

 R vs Parsonneur: In this case, a French woman who illegally entered the UK

100 (1959) WRNLR

 Bashaya vs State104: The deceased, while on a journey, was attacked by a group

103 (2006) vol 12 NWLR pt 913

107 (1971) vol 55 CA Reports

112 (1848) vol 2 C & K ER

The court stated:

113 (1975) Vol 3 All E.R

“Provocation which reduces what will otherwise amount to murder to

115 (1986) vol 83 C.A.R

1. That the accused had sexual intercourse with the victim.

116 (2003) Vol 6 NWLR pt 816

"... An offence of conspiracy can be committed where persons have acted

119 (1994) vol 8 NWLR pt 365

The Offence of Theft/Stealing

123 (1980) Vol 71 CA

The Offence of Receiving Stolen

127 1992 Vol 2 WLR

Receiving Converted Stolen Property

House Breaking And Burglary