ESIEVURE EBIGIDE VS THE STATE
August 26, 2025GABRIEL EDEDEY VS THE STATE
August 26, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1972) Legalpedia (SC) 61091
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Jan 21, 1972
Suit Number: SC. 63/69
CORAM
COKER JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
LEWIS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
UDOMA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
L.T. THADANIH. UDHARAM APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The respondent, that is to say the National Bank of Nigeria Ltd., had lent monies to the appellants by way of overdrafts on their current account and at the time of the institution of the present proceedings it is stated that the balance on the accounts of the defendants (now appellants) stood at £3,980.18.10d. The plaintiffs then instituted the present proceedings against the defendants claiming the above amount.
HELD
The document Exhibit “C” is not an acknowledgement which would take the claim out of the provisions of the Statutes of Limitation, 1625
ISSUES
Whether or not a letter produced in evidence at the trial as Exhibit “C” was a sufficient acknowledgment of a debt to take the case out of the provisions of the Statutes of Limitation.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
WHAT CONSTITUTES AN “ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF DEBT”
Before a writing could be described as an acknowledgement to take the case out of the Statutes of Limitation, the writing by the debtor should recognise the existence of the debt or the rights against himself. Beyond this whether a document does this or not is a question of fact depending upon its contents. It is the duty of a court called upon to decide such an issue to study carefully the document on which reliance is placed by the defendant and ascertain as best as it can whether the document by its contents does recognise the existence of a right or debt against the defendant or indeed the existence of a right of recourse against himself. It is not necessary that the document should state the precise figure of the indebtedness.- Per George B. Ayodola Coker, JSC
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF DEBT TO A STRANGER
1. It has been abundantly settled that an acknowledgement to a stranger is not sufficient. It must be to the creditor or his agent, to some one who was entitled to receive payment of the debt, and to whom you could presume a promise to pay the debt-Per George B. Ayodola Coker, JSC
CASES CITED
Tanner v. Smart (1827) 6 B & C 103
Ajike v. Cardoso & Anor. (1939) 5 WACA 134
STATUTES REFERRED TO
