UNITED SPINNERS NIGERIA LTD V CHARTERED BANK LTD
June 20, 2025CHIEF ABUBAKAR ZIBIRI ODUGBO v. CHIEF ALIU ABU & ORS
June 20, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2001) Legalpedia (SC) 10650
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
HOLDEN AT ABUJA
Thu Jul 12, 2001
Suit Number: SC 111/1996
CORAM
BODE RHODES -VIVOUR JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
M.L. UWAIS, CHIEF JUSTICE, NIGERIA
A.I. IGUH
A.I. KATSINA-ALU
MICHAEL EKUNDAYO OGUNDARE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT(Read the Leading Judgment)
PARTIES
ALBERT AFEGBAI APPELLANTS
ATTORNEY-GENERAL EDO STATE RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant reached an agreement with the respondent for an alternative plot to his land that was acquired by government which was entered as Consent judgment. He subsequently claimed that he thought there were two separate transactions between the parties under which another land, apart from the one given him, would be granted to him.
HELD
The court dismissed the appeal and held that there had been no misrepresentation on the basis of which the appellant can resile from the consent judgment.
ISSUES
Whether the learned trial judge was right in his interpretation of section 324(2) (f) of the whether the appellant had failed to prove the essential ingredients of fraudulent misrepresentation against the respondent.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
PRINCIPLES THAT APPLY IN A CLAIM FOR RESCISSION OF A CONTRACT FOR FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION
The principles that apply in a claim for rescission of a contract for fraudulent misrepresentation need only be stated briefly. First, the representation must be a statement of existing fact. Secondly, the representation must be material and unambiguous. Thirdly the representee must show that he has acted in reliance on the misrepresentation. Where there is no representation of an existing fact it will not be necessary to proceed to consider any question of falsity-
INGREDIENTS OF MISREPRESENTATION WHICH CAN LEAD TO RESCISSION OF CONTRACT
Even if a statement is true in the sense in which the representor meant it but is so obscure that the representee understands it in another sense, in which it is untrue, the representor is not liable if his interpretation is the correct one. It has further been held that the representor is not guilty of fraud, even if the court holds that the representee’s interpretation was the correct one –
BASIS OF RESCISSION OF A CONTRACT
Rescission of a contract cannot be based on a misinterpretation of the representor’s statement which on its true interpretation is not false –
CASES CITED
1. Mc Inerny v. Lloyds Bank Ltd (1994) 1 Lloyds Rep. 246, 254|2. Akerhielm v. De Mare (1959) AC 789;|3. Gross v. Lewis Hillman Ltd. (1970) Ch. 445|4. Huddersfield Banking Co. Ltd. v. Henry Lister & Son, Ltd. (1895-9) All ER. Rep. 868
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Not Available|
