DENNIS IVIENAGBOR VS HENRY OSATO BAZUAYE & ANOR
June 27, 2025JONAS EFFIA VS THE STATE
June 27, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1999) Legalpedia (SC) 94101
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Jun 4, 1999
Suit Number: SC. 200/1994
CORAM
KAYODE ESO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ANTHONY NNAEMEZIE ANIAGOLU, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
COKER CHIEF JUSTICE NIGERIA
MUHAMMADU L. UWAIS,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE INDUSTRIES (NIG) LIMITED APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellants entered into a sublease agreement with the landlords who later turned around and sold the property to the 5th respondent
HELD
The court held that the lower court was in error when it found that there was no binding contract between the landlords and the appellant and that the 5th respondent was not a trespasser.
ISSUES
“1. Was the Court of Appeal right in reversing the decision of the trial court granting reliefs 2, 3 and 4 of the plaintiff/appellant’s claim which reversal was predicated on the ground that there was no valid and enforceable agreement between the parties having regard to the fact that:(a) Governor’s consent has not been obtained as required by section 22 of the Land Use Act.(b) That the correspondence between the parties were marked ‘subject to contract.’2. Was the Court of Appeal right in holding that the plaintiff’s claim for damages is not sustainable since there is no binding agreement between the parties for the reasons stated in issue [I] above? 3. Was the Court of Appeal right for the reasons given in the judgment that the 5th defendant is not a trespasser and therefore could not be made liable to pay damages for such act of trespass’?4. If the judgment of the trial, court is restored, should the Supreme Court not order that damages suffered by the plaintiff be assessed as claimed in paragraph 34[5][A] of the amended statement of claim’?”
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ON DISTINCTION BETWEEN AN AGREEMENT TO ALIENATE LAND AND THE INSTRUMENT BY WHICH THE ALIENATION TAKES PLACE
“I think it ought to be stressed that the holder of a statutory right of occupancy is certainly not prohibited by section 22[1] of the Act from entering into some form of negotiations which may end with a written agreement for presentation to the Governor for his necessary consent or approval. This is because the Land Use Act does not prohibit a written agreement to transfer or alienate land. So long as such a written agreement is understood and entered into subject to the consent of the Governor, there will be no contravention of section 22[I] of the Land Use Act by the mere fact that such a written agreement is executed before it is forwarded to the Governor for his consent”-Uwaifo JSC.
APPROACH OF THE COURT WHEN A TERM IN A CONTRACT IS A NULLITY
“A clause which is meaningless can often be ignored, while still having the contract good, whereas a clause which has yet to be agreed may mean that there is no contract at all, because the parties have not agreed on all the essential terms. I take it to be clear law that, if one of the parties to a contract inserts into it an exempting condition in his own favour which the other side agrees and it afterwards appears that that condition is meaningless or is so ambiguous that no ascertainable meaning can be given to it, that does not render the whole contract a nullity. The only result is that the exempting condition is a nullity and must be rejected. It would be strange, indeed, if a party could escape every one of his obligations by inserting a meaningless exemption from some of them.”Uwaifo JSC
STAGES INVOLVED IN TRANSFER OF AN ESTATE IN LAND
“A transfer on sale of an estate in land is divisible into two distinct stages: [i] the contract stage, ending with the formation of a binding contract for sale, [ii] the conveyance stage, culminating in the legal title vesting in the purchaser by means of the appropriate instrument under seal.”Uwaifo JSC
WHEN PART PERFORMANCE WILL TAKE A CONTRACT OUT OF THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS
“The ground on which the court holds that part performance takes a contract out of the Statute of Frauds is, that when one of two contracting parties has been induced, or allowed by the other, to alter his position on the faith of the contract, as for instance by taking possession of land, and expending money in building or other like acts, there would be a fraud in the other party to setup the legal invalidity of the contract on the faith of which he induced, or allowed, the person contracting with him to act and expend his money”.Uwaifo JSC
CASES CITED
Awojugbagbe Light Industries Ltdv. Chinukwe [1995] 4 NWLR [pt. 390] 379Denning v. Edwardes [1961] A.C. 245Spottiswoode, Ballantyne & Co. Ltd. t. Doreen Appliances Ltd.[1942] 2 All ER 65 at p. 66Nicolene Ltd. v. Simmonds [1953] I All ER 822Sherbrooke v. Dipple [1980] 41 P & CR 173 at 176Michael Richards Properties v. St. Saviour’s Parish [1975] 3 All ER 416Law v. Jones [1973] 2 All ER 437Triverton Estates Ltd v. Wearwell Ltd. [1974] 1 All ER 209United Bank for Africa Ltd. v. Tejumola & Sons Ltd [1988] 2 NWLR [Pt.79] 662 at 701Caron v. Caton [1866] I L.R. Ch. App. 137 at 148,Manchester Diocesan Council for Education v Commercial 7 General Ind. Ltd. v.Chinukwe at 426Lockett v. Norman- Wright (1924) All ER Rep. 216 at 219Yakassai v. Messrs /near Motors Ltd. (1975) 5 SC 107 at 115-116Dumbo v. Idugboe [1983] 1 SCNLR 29;Obot v. Central Batik of Nigeria [1993] 8 NWLR [Pt.310] 140Broadline Enterprises Ltd. v. Monterey Maritime Corp. (1995) 9 NWLR (pt. 417) 1.Nixon v. Attorney-General [1930] I Ch. 566 at 574.Olawoyin v. Attorney-General Northern Nigeria [1961] 2 NSCC_ 165 at 169.Aromire v. Awoyemi (1972) 2 S.C. 182;Amakor v. Obiefuna [1974] I All NLR 119Trenco (Nigeria) Ltd. v. African Real Estate & Investment Co. Ltd & Anor [1978] 11 NSCC 220Mckenna v. Richer (1950) VLR 360 at 372Johnson v. Agnew (1979) All ER 883 H.L. at P. 893Ferguson v. Wilson (1866) 2 Ch. App. 77Denton v. Stewart (1786) 1 Cox Eq. Cas. 258Wycombe Rail Co. v. Donnington Hospital (1866) I L.R. Ch. App. 268Seawell v. Webster (1859) 29 L.J. Ch. 71 at p. 73
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Land Use Act, 1978Court of Appeal Act, 1976Supreme Court Act, 1960?
