ADEBISI MACGREGOR ASSOCIATES LIMITED V NIGERIA MERCHANT BANK LIMITED
July 4, 2025THOMAS ENIYAN OLUMESAN VS AYODELE OGUNDEPO
July 4, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1996) Legalpedia (SC) 54411
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Tue Feb 13, 1996
Suit Number: SC.254/90
CORAM
S.M.A. BELGORE – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
I.L. KUTIGI – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
E.O. OGWUEGBU – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
U. MOHAMMED – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
EZEALUKWE APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
Appellant entered into a contract with John Holt Limited to purchase tinned geisha mackerel fish in tomato sauce. the appellant purchased 650 cartons of small size geisha and 160 cartons of large size geisha, all valued at N12,790.00 on reaching Kumba he discovered that 577 cartons of the tinned fish were rotten and unmerchantable.the respondents maintained that the appellant wasn’t the same person they had contract with.
HELD
The court held that the appeal was dismissed and affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The respondent is entitled to the costs of this appeal which I assess at N1,000.00.
ISSUES
The main issue in this appeal is based on privity of contract and the competency of the appellant to sue in this matter
RATIONES DECIDENDI
DOCTRINE OF PRIVITY OF CONTRACT
The general rule, known as the doctrine of privity of contract is that only a party to a contract may sue or be sued under that contract. Per MOHAMMED, JSC
CASES CITED
Quo Vadis Hotels v. Commissioner (1973) 6 SC 71
STATUTES REFERRED TO
