GOMBE V P.W. (NIGERIA) LIMITED
July 4, 2025MAGDALENE ONOGWU VS THE STATE
July 4, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1995) Legalpedia (SC) 19411
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Wed Jun 7, 1995
Suit Number: SC. 56/1991
CORAM
M.L. UWAIS – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
I.L. KUTIGI – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
M.E. OGUNDARE – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
E.O. OGWUEGBU – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
U. MOHAMMED – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
J.A. OBANOR & CO. LTD. APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant, J. A. Obanor and Co. Limited, as plaintiff at the Benin City High Court, filed an action claiming several declarations and an injunction against the respondent. In response, the respondent as the defendant before the trial High Court denied all the claims and filed a counter-claim against the appellant.
HELD
That appellant company had benefited from the advance loan ; appellant can run away from the liability of a loan advanced to the company in equity the appellant cannot deny taking benefit from a loan paid into company’s account
ISSUES
1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the judgment of the learned trial Judge having regard to the state of the pleadings, the evidence led before the learned trial Judge and issues raised in the appeal?2. Whether on the state of the pleadings, the evidence on the printed record and the issues raised in appeal, the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the appellant obtained benefit from the advance of N250,000.00 signed by Mr. Mr. J. A. Obanor?3. And if the answer to issue 2 is in the affirmative, was the Court of Appeal, in any event, right after holding that the respondent was not entitled to recover the sum advanced to J. A. Obanor, in invoking and applying the equitable doctrine enunciated in their Lordships’ judgment in the circumstance of this case when the issue was not placed before their Lordships?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
COURTS CAN RESORT TO EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES
Courts in this country can have resort to equitable principles and establish a remedy where strict adherence to common law rules would cause injustice and hardship to parties. – Per Uthman Mohammed, JSC
THE RULE IN ROYAL BRITISH BANK V TURQUAND
The rule in Royal British Bank v. Turquand rule states that, while persons dealing with a company are assumed to have read the public documents of the company and to have ascertained that the proposed transaction is not inconsistent therewith, they are not required to do more; they need not inquire into the regularity of the internal proceedings -what Lord Hatherley called “the indoor management Per Uthman Mohammed, JSC
CASES CITED
Alade v. Alemuloke (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt. 69) 207 at 212Enang v. Adu (1981) 11 – 12 SC. 25 at 42Liggett (Liverpool) v. Barclays Bank (1927) A.E.R. Rep. 451 at 456Trenco (Nigeria) Limited v. African Real Estate and Investment Co. Ltd. and Anor. (1978) 4 SC. 9Okechukwu Adimora v. Nnanyelugo Ajufo and 2 others (1988) 1 NS.CC 1005; (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 80) 1
STATUTES REFERRED TO
