HEAD OF THE FEDERAL MILITARY GOVERNMENT VS MILITARY GOVERNOR MID-WESTERN STATE OF NIGERIA
August 13, 2025EJAKPOMEHWE AKPORUE & ANOR VS ISICHERI OKEI & ORS
August 14, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1973) Legalpedia (SC) 51110
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Dec 7, 1973
Suit Number: SC. 187/1971
CORAM
UDOMA, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
EMANUEL OBIOMA OGWUEGBU, JSC. JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT (Read the Leading Judgment)
BABALAKIN,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
TIKA-TORE PRESS LIMITED APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
In a suit commenced in the Lagos High Court, the plaintiffs claimed against the defendants the sum of £2,143:6:11d being balance of monies due and payable by the estate of Monsuru Badaru Abina deceased in respect of the said deceaseds account with the plaintiff, which account the deceased maintained under the trade name of Olaosebikan Stores. The learned trial Judge, after reviewing the evidence and making certain observations both on the facts and as to the law applicable, dismissed the plaintiff companys claim. The plaintiff not satisfied with the decision of the trial court appealed to the court of appeal and further to the Supreme Court.
HELD
The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.
ISSUES
1. Although waiver was pleaded as a defense, the defense could not be sustained because there was no consideration given by the defendants/respondents for the promise to waive the balance due.
2. That the learned trial Judge based his judgment not on “accord and satisfaction” but on the defense of waiver resulting in estoppel.
3. The learned trial Judge was in error to have dismissed the plaintiffs/appellants claim.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
1960 FSC 207/1959 [1960] NSCC 41 EFFECT OF LACK OF CONSIDERATION OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT VARIATION OF CONTRACT
“As a matter of fact, it may now be said, with commendable justification, that the former theoretical view that there is no consideration or nothing in writing to support the variation of the contract no longer nullifies the effect of the defense of estoppel.” Per FATAYI-WILLIAMS, JSC.
EFFECT OF PROMISE OR ASSURANCE IN LEGAL RELATIONS
“The principle, as we understand it, is that where one party has, by his words or conduct, made to the other a promise or assurance which was intended to affect the legal relations between them and to be acted on accordingly, then, once the other part has taken him at his word and acted on it, the one who gave the promise or assurance cannot afterwards be allowed to revert to the previous legal relations as modified by himself, even though it is not supported in point of law by any consideration, but only by his word.” Per FATAYI-WILLIAMS, JSC.<foo< p=””></foo<>
EFFECT OF PROMISE OR ASSURANCE IN LEGAL RELATIONS
“The principle, as we understand it, is that where one party has, by his words or conduct, made to the other a promise or assurance which was intended to affect the legal relations between them and to be acted on accordingly, then, once the other part has taken him at his word and acted on it, the one who gave the promise or assurance cannot afterwards be allowed to revert to the previous legal relations as modified by himself, even though it is not supported in point of law by any consideration, but only by his word.” Per FATAYI-WILLIAMS, JSC.
1960 FSC 207/1959 [1960] NSCC 41 EFFECT OF LACK OF CONSIDERATION OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT VARIATION OF CONTRACT
“As a matter of fact, it may now be said, with commendable justification, that the former theoretical view that there is no consideration or nothing in writing to support the variation of the contract no longer nullifies the effect of the defense of estoppel.” Per FATAYI-WILLIAMS, JSC.<foo< p=””></foo<>
CASES CITED
Combe v. Combe (1951) 1 All ER 767
D & C Builders Ltd. v. Rees (1965) 3 All ER 837 at 840
Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway Co. (1877) 2 App. Cas 439 at p. 448
STATUTES REFERRED TO
None.
