A.O. OBIKOYA VS THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AND OFFICIAL RECEIVER OF POOL HOUSE GROUP (NIGERIA) LTD.
August 9, 2025PATRICK OSSAI V VICTOR OSSAI NWAJIDE & ANOR
August 9, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1975) Legalpedia (SC) 10136
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Apr 18, 1975
Suit Number: SC. 402/1974
CORAM
TASLIM O. ELIAS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ALOYSIUS LYORGYER KATSINA-ALU, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
GEORGE S. SOWEMIMO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
A.O. SODIMU APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Plaintiff brought an action in detinue against the defendant. The defendant, for his own part, contended that there was never a valid contract of sale between the plaintiff and itself as it had no power to enter into the alleged contract with the plaintiff. An alternative argument of the defendant was that, even on the assumption that there was a valid contract between the parties, the failure of the plaintiff to remove the six cranes within the stipulated period of seven days following the sale resulted in the property in the cranes not passing to the plaintiff so as to enable him to sustain an action of detinue.
HELD
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and held that that there was no contract and that there was no action in detinue.
ISSUES
Whether there a valid contract between the parties
Whether a plaintiff/appellant can bring an action in detinue when he did not claim as owner?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ACTION IN DETINUE
“It is elementary that, if there is no valid contract between the parties, there can be no action in detinue in respect of the six cranes the return of which is being sought.” Per ELIAS, CJN
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Decree No. 54 of 1968
The Sale of Goods Law (Cap. 115)
