ALHAJI LABARAN NAKYAUTA VS ALHAJI IBRAHIM MAIKIMA & ANOR
August 8, 2025B.O. OKAFOR VS AFRICAN CONTINENTAL BANK LTD AND WIDI JALLO
August 8, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1975) Legalpedia (SC) 18911
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Wed May 21, 1975
Suit Number: SC. 443/1974
CORAM
YEKINI OLAYIWOLA ADIO (Read the Leading Judgment), JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
DANIEL O. IBEKWE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SIR UDO UDOMA, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
ALHAJI IBRAHIM YAKASSAI APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Plaintiff claimed that the defendants wrongfully detained and refused to deliver the Plaintiffs Vehicles. The Plaintiff had purchased the vehicles from the defendant and kept on paying various sums of money as deposit towards the purchase of the vehicles until they were delivered to the Plaintiff. The vehicles were sent to the defendants workshop for repairs and they took the advantage to effect a seizure of the vehicle on the grounds that the plaintiff had failed to pay up the remaining instalments for the vehicle.
HELD
The Supreme Court held that in view of the fact that the trial court did not make any provisional assessment of the damages, the case was to be sent back to the trial court to assess the value of the vehicle at the time of seizure, damages payable to the plaintiff and to enter judgment accordingly in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUES
Whether or not the defendants had the right to seize the vehicle in question
RATIONES DECIDENDI
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN OUTRIGHT SALE AND A HIRE PURCHASE AGREEMENT
“The difference between an Outright Sale and a Hire Purchase Agreement is that in the former, the property in the vehicle passes to the purchase as soon as the contract is entered into, whereas in Hire Purchase Agreement, the property in the vehicle still remains vested in the owner until payment is fully made. In other words, under a Hire Purchase Agreement it is always open to the owner of a vehicle to take possession of it on failure of the hirer pay the instalments. In an outright sale, the sellers remedy lies in an action to recover the balance of payment owned by the purchaser.” Per IBEKWE, JSC
CASES CITED
Thompson v. Veale, (1896) 7 LT 130
STATUTES REFERRED TO
NIL
