ALI SAFE VS NORTHERN STATES MARKETING BOARD - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

ALI SAFE VS NORTHERN STATES MARKETING BOARD

STARCOLA (NIGERIA) LTD & ANOR. VS MADAM TAIBATU ADENIJI & 4 ORS
August 26, 2025
UZOSIKE NWOKORONKWO VS THE STATE
August 26, 2025
STARCOLA (NIGERIA) LTD & ANOR. VS MADAM TAIBATU ADENIJI & 4 ORS
August 26, 2025
UZOSIKE NWOKORONKWO VS THE STATE
August 26, 2025
Show all

ALI SAFE VS NORTHERN STATES MARKETING BOARD

Legalpedia Citation: (1972) Legalpedia (SC) 71714

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Fri Jan 28, 1972

Suit Number: SC. 535/70

CORAM


LEWIS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

MADARIKAN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

FATAYI-WILLIAMS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT


PARTIES


ALI SAFE APPELLANTS


RESPONDENTS


AREA(S) OF LAW



SUMMARY OF FACTS

The plaintiff saw posters advertising auctions of some properties which she eventually bought and was issued a receipt by the auctioneer. After purchase the plaintiff read on the newspaper that the defendant was inviting offers for the sale of the said house.


HELD


The court allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of Wheeler, J., in suit K/46/1970 delivered in the Kano High Court on the 14th of October, 1970.


ISSUES


Whether it was open to a principal (in this case, the respondents) or not, in these circumstances, to plead the Statute of Frauds in a claim against him by a purchaser (in this case, the appellant) pursuant to the sale by the agent on the principals behalf of the said property.

Whether the learned trial Judge was in error in finding that Exhibit 4 did not comply as a memorandum with the requirement of Section 4 of the Statute of Frauds


RATIONES DECIDENDI


POSITION OF AN AUCTIONEER AS AN AGENT


“It is well established that an auctioneer is by virtue of his employment the agent of both the vendor and the purchaser in a sale by auction the requirements of the statute regarding the identification of the parties to the sale have been fulfilled by the receipt.” I. LEWIS, JSC.


INTERPRETING MEMORANDUM REQUIRED UNDER THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS


“There need not be a specific or express reference from one document to the other document in order to constitute a memorandum required under the Statute of Frauds as is sufficient if by necessary implication there should be reference from one to the other.” I. LEWIS, JSC.


CASES CITED


Burgess v. Cox (1951) Ch. 383

Timmins v. Moreland Street Property Co. Ltd. (1958) Ch. 110

Peirce v. Corf LR. 9 QB. 210

Jarret v. Hunter (1886) 34 Ch D 182

Phillips v. Butler (1945) Ch. 358

Basma v. Weekes (1950) AC 441

Shardlow v. Cotterell (1881) 20 Ch. D. 90

Auerback v. Nelson (1919) 2 Ch. 383

Studds v. Watson (1885) 28 Ch D 305

Rishton v. Whatmore (1878) 8 Ch. D. 467

Freeman v. Freeman (1891) 7 TLR. 431

Pearce v. Gardner (1897) 1 QB 688

Fowler v. Bratt (1950) 2 KB 96

Long v. Millar (1879) 4 CPD 450

Stokes v. Whicher (1920) 1 Ch. 411, 418.


STATUTES REFERRED TO


Sale of Goods Act, 1893

Law of Property Act, 1925

Statute of Frauds, the Sales by Auction Law and the Infants Relief Act, 1874

Auctioneers Law

Land Tenure Law


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT 

Comments are closed.