SHITTU ONIGBEDE AND ORS V. SAMUEL BALOGUN
June 20, 2025CYRIL O. OSAKUE V. FEDERAL COLLEGE OF EDUCATION (TECH) ASABA & ORS.
June 20, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2002) Legalpedia (SC) 51193
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Feb 22, 2002
Suit Number: SC.98/2000
CORAM
MICHAEL EKUNDAYO OGUNDARE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
EMMANUEL OLAYINKA AYOOLA, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
ALEX O. ONWUCHEKWA APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant who was a businessman and the bank’s customer sometime in 1983 received a contract from the Federal Electoral Commission to supply certain goods pursuant to which the Commission requested the Central Bank and the respondent to make available foreign exchange to the appellant. The appellant duly request the respondent to undertake the submission, processing and obtaining from the Central Bank and to request approval for the remittance to the appellant’s overseas suppliers (Tellascar Ltd. of London) the sum of £32,500 being the FOB value of the goods to be imported into Nigeria. ?
HELD
The Appeal was allowed. ?
ISSUES
(1) Whether the act of the appellant in making arrangement for the payment of his overseas customers and in paying them offended the Exchange Control (Anti-sabotage) Act (Cap 114: Laws of Nigeria, 1990).
RATIONES DECIDENDI
DEFENCE OF STATUTORY BAR/ILLEGALITY TO AN ACTION – NEED TO SPECIFICALLY PLEAD SAME
A cardinal rule of pleading is that whenever a statute is relied on as bar to the action it should be specially pleaded. Per E. O AYOOLA, JSC.
CASES CITED
Coburn v. Collins (1877) 35 Ch. D. 373,Hayward v. Lely (1887) 56 LT 418.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The Exchange Control (Anti-Sabotage) Act of 1984 (Cap 114: Laws of Nigeria, 1990). ?
