SAMSON AJIBADE V. MAYOWA& ANOR
August 2, 2025CHIEF ODUM & ANOR V. CHIEF P.B.O. CHINWO & ORS
August 2, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1978-09) Legalpedia (SC) 81111
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Sep 15, 1978
Suit Number: SC. 314/1976
CORAM
OGUNDARE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SIR UDO UDOMA, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MOHAMMED BELLO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
EMMANUEL OSELOKA ARAKA
APPELLANTS
MONIER CONSTRUCTION CO (NIG) LTD
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
LEASES – LAW OF CONTRACT- DOCTRINE OF FRUSTRATION OF CONTRACT
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant instituted action to recover rent for a period of two years. The respondent contended that it employee had vacated the property during the period due to the Biafran war.
HELD
The court dismissed the appeal and held that a lease can be frustrated.
ISSUES
Whether a lease can be frustrated.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF FRUSTRATION TO LEASES
The doctrine of frustration may in certain circumstances apply to a lease. … it may be tantamount to injustice to deny a tenant the benefit of frustration in cases where, owing to the occurrence of an intervening event or change of circumstances so fundamental as to be regarded by the law as striking at the root of the agreement, it has become impossible for the tenant to enjoy the fruits of his lease and at the same time to expect him on account of the abstract estate concept to honour his obligations under the lease – Bello J.S.C
CASES CITED
W.J. Tateni Ltd. v. Ganiboa (1938) 3 All WR 135
Secretary of State for War v. Midland Great western Railway Co of Ireland (1923) 2 IT
Denny, Mott & Dickson Ltd. v. Frazer (James) Co. Ltd., (1944) AC 265 at pp. 274-6
Cricklewood Property v. Leightons Investment (1945) AC 221
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Not Available
