CORAM

---

JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL

MOHAMMED DANJUMA JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL

ADEBUKUNOLA ADEOTI IBIRONKE BANJOKO JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL

---

PARTIES

---

DAVID OSIGBE IRUMEKHEI APPELANT(S)

APPELLANTS 

---

TASIE OKPARA RESPONDENT(S)

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CONTRACT, EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

 

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Respondent was the claimant at trial, wherein the Respondent took out a Writ against the Appellant as defendant. The Appellant and the Respondent in a bid to settle the matter out of Court signed terms of settlement. On the 28th March, 2022 when the matter came up before the lower Court, the Court struck out the terms of settlement and ordered the Appellant to proceed with his defence. When the Appellant sought for time to study the petition of the Court on striking out the terms of settlement, the Court refused to grant the application, even if it is going to be for a stand down, and foreclose the Appellant’s defence suo motu.

​The Appellant being dissatisfied with the decision of the lower Court appealed to this Court.

 

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal dismissed

 

 

---

ISSUES

---

Whether or not the lower Court was right to have struck out the terms of settlement entered into by the parties?

Whether or not the Appellant was accorded fair hearing by foreclosing his defence?

 

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

AGREEMENT – PARTIES ARE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THEIR AGREEMENT

---

In the case of FORTE OIL PLC V. OGUNGBEMILE (2021) LPELR-52919 (CA), this Court held thus:

“It is settled and beyond citing of legal authorities that parties are bound by the terms of their agreement. See the case of LARMIE V. DATA PROCESSING MAINTENANCE & SERVICES LTD (2005) LPELR-1756 (SC), where the apex Court held thus: “The law is trite regarding the bindingness of terms of agreement on the parties. Where parties enter into an agreement in writing, they are bound by the terms thereof. This Court, and indeed any other Court will not allow anything to be read into such agreement, terms or which the parties were not in agreement or were not ad-idem…”-Per NIMPAR, JCA (PP. 41-42, Paras. E-D)

Similarly, in the case of OGBEBOR V. UTAGBA RUBBER ESTATE LTD & ANOR (2014) LPELR-24476 (CA) PP. 7-8, Paras. E-A, it was held that:

“Parties are bound by terms of agreement they enter into, as same must of necessity be honoured. The Court’s only function is to interpret the agreement in enforceable terms and cannot rewrite the agreement. See Union Bank (Nig.) Ltd V. Ozigi (1994) 3 NWLR Pt. 333 Pg. 385.”

The doctrine of the law of contract is what has been referred to as the sanctity of contract, usually expressed in the Latin maxim “pacta sunt servanda” which means “agreement must be kept”. It is elementary that where parties have entered into an agreement, they are bound by the provisions of the agreement. This is because a party cannot ordinarily resile from a contract or agreement. This is the whole essence of the doctrine of sanctity of contract or agreement. The Court is bound to construe the terms only in the event of an action arising thereform.

In the instant case, there was a meeting of the mind of the parties as to the consideration payable and the parties were consequently ad idem as regards the terms of the agreement. At that point therefore, if the Appellant fails to pay the consideration, he would be in breach of the agreement. See the cases of EKA V. KUJU (2013) LPELR(CA) and CHABASAYA V. ANWASI (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1201) 163 AT 179 G-H. – Per Mohammed Danjuma, JCA

 

 

---

LITIGATION – CONDUCT OF PARTIES TO LITIGATION

---

I agree with the finding of the learned trial judge that there must be an end to litigation. A party will not be permitted to litigate his case in a manner that perpetually harasses or vexes his opponent. A party is not entitled to pursue his case to the annoyance of opponent in the name of obtaining fair hearing. It is in the interest of everyone for litigation to have an end. See the case of PAN ATLANTIC SHIPPING V. BABATUNDE (2007) LPELR-4826 (CA). – Per Mohammed Danjuma, JCA

 

 

---

FAIR HEARING – WHERE A COURT ORDERS A SPECIFIC CONDUCT IN LINE WITH FAIR HEARING

---

Where the Court in line with fair hearing principles order a specific conduct on the part of the parties, the Court has a duty to enforce its rules. In such a situation, the defence of fair hearing is not available to an aggrieved party because the rule itself has complied with the fair hearing principles. Reference is made to the cases of AONDOAKAA VS OBOT & ANOR (2021) LPELR- 56605(SC), GIDIYA & ORS v. SANUSI & ORS (2022) LPELR-58932(SC), NWORA & ORS VS NWABUEZE & ORS (2019) LPELR-46803(SC). Accordingly, a Defendant cannot be heard to complain that his right to Fair Hearing has been breached if the Court notifies him of a proceeding and specifically orders him to perform an Act and he fails to do so. – Per A. A. I. Banjoko, JCA

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)

 

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT