EZEALA NNAJI OFOR VS. LINUS UKONU
July 21, 2025A. M. O. AKINSANYA VS UNITED BANK OF AFRICA LTD
July 21, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1986) Legalpedia (SC) 11162
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Jul 11, 1986
Suit Number: SC. 17/1985
CORAM
KAYODE ESO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MUHAMMADU LAWAL UWAIS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OLUFUNLOLA OYELOLA ADEKEYE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OBASEKI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
SAIDU KAWU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
TRANS BRIDGE COMPANY LIMITED APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellants, entered into an arrangement with the Respondents for the sale of a landed property by the Respondents to the Appellants. Meanwhile, the transaction in question had taken place before the incorporation of the appellant’s company. After a while, there were new terms to the agreement in which the appellant rejected. The appellant also filed a suit in the High Court against the defendant for breach of agreement and laid claims. Judgment was passed in the appellant’s favor. The respondent was not satisfied with the decision of the trial judge and so he appealed to the Court of Appeal. The appeal was allowed by the Court of Appeal and the decision of the High Court was set aside. The appellant not satisfied, further appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
The appeal was dismissed.
ISSUES
The Court of Appeal misdirected itself in law and on the fact, holding that the subsequent protracted series of conduct of the Defendant/Appellant both before and after incorporation of the Plaintiff through series of correspondence and meetings making specific reference to the Agreement of May, 1976 with the Plaintiff/Respondent and the Nigerian Bank for Commerce and Industry do not raise an equitable estoppel to render it unconscionable on the part of the Defendant/Appellant to repudiate the contract of sale of the disputed landed property on the ground that the alleged contract of May, 1976 was a pre-incorporation contract.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
Law should only be applied to facts of a case
“Law should only be applied to facts of a case. It is not for a Court to manufacture facts or work from law backwards to facts on the pretext of justice. That could amount to judicial anarchy. It is the establishment of facts that comes first, and later the application thereto of the principles of law.” Per ESO, J.S.C.
JUDGES STANCE IN INTERPRETING THE LAW
“It is the function of Judges to keep the law alive, in motion, and to make it progressive for the purpose of arriving at the end of justice, without being inhibited by technicalities, to find every conceivable, but acceptable way of avoiding narrowness that would spell injustice. Short of a Judge being a legislator, a Judge, to my mind, must possess an aggressive stance in interpreting the law.” Per ESO, J.S.C.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
