NIMOTA OLUWO & ORS VS R.O. ADEBOWALE - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

NIMOTA OLUWO & ORS VS R.O. ADEBOWALE

MICHAEL OBIEFUNA VS ALEXANDER OKOYE
September 4, 2025
HABIB DISU & ORS VS C. W DANIEL-KALIO
September 4, 2025
MICHAEL OBIEFUNA VS ALEXANDER OKOYE
September 4, 2025
HABIB DISU & ORS VS C. W DANIEL-KALIO
September 4, 2025
Show all

NIMOTA OLUWO & ORS VS R.O. ADEBOWALE

Legalpedia Citation: (1964-03) Legalpedia 37649 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Holden At Abuja

Sat Mar 7, 1964

Suit Number: SC 162/1962


CORAM


MBANEFO FEDERAL JUSTICE

BRETT JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

ABBOTT A.G. FEDERAL JUSTICE


PARTIES


NIMOTA OLUWO & ORS

APPELLANTS 


R.O.  ADEBOWALE

RESPONDENTS 


AREA(S) OF LAW


 DEED OF ASSIGNMENT-SETTING ASIDE-INJUNCTION

 


SUMMARY OF FACTS

 The plaintiffs in the court below as the executors of one C.J.Oluowo sought an order of court setting aside a deed of assignment of lease duly registered in the Lands Office, Lagos and an order of injunction restraining the defendant, his servants or agents from acting under the said deed.

 


HELD


 The court held that the contract is not void ab initio but voidable and that the appeal be allowed and the judgement of the court below be set aside and replaced with that of this court.

 


ISSUES


1. whether the deceased was still labouring under the belief that the transaction between himself and the defendant was one of loan and mortgage of his property at 99 King George Avenue, Yaba

2. whether the onus was on the plaintiffs to show that the deceased was so labouring, or had it shifted to the defendant to show that between the making of the two exhibits the deception had been put right

3. whether the misrepresentation was in respect of the contents of the Deed only, or as to the character and class of the Deed.

4. whether the parties can be restored to their former position

 


RATIONES DECIDENDI


APPLICATION TO SET ASIDE TRANSACTIONS.


 ‘It seems to us clear, on principle, that a statement in a plea by the party from whom the property passed, that he claims back the property on the ground that he was induced to part with it by fraud, is as unequivocal a determination of his election to avoid the transaction as could well be made’- LOUIS NWACHUKWU MBANEFO

 


CASES CITED


1. Clough v. L.NWR. 1871 L.R. 7 Exch. 26

2. Briess v. Woolley [1954] 1 All E. R. 909 at 918

3. Smith v. Kay (7 H.L. Cas. 769)

4. Howatson v. Webb [1907] 1 Ch. D.537

5. Muskham Finance Ltd. v. Howard [1963] 2 W.L.R. 87,

6. Donovan v. Fricker 37 E.R. 813

7. Fulthorpe v. Foster (I Vern. 476)

ALASAN BABATUNDE, AJAGUNNA II OLUKARE OF IKARE VS GOVERNOR, WESTERN REGION   1960   FSC 207/1959   [1960] NSCC 41

 


STATUTES REFERRED TO


 1. Federal Supreme Court Rules

 


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT 

Comments are closed.