UNIPETROL NIGERIA PLC VS EDO STATE BOARD OF INTERNAL REVENUE
June 6, 2025COTECNA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED V. IVORY MERCHANT BANK L
June 6, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2006-04) Legalpedia 08480 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Abuja
Fri Apr 7, 2006
Suit Number: SC.168/2002
CORAM
I. L. KUTIGI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
A. I. KATSINA-ALU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
I. C. P.ACHOLONU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
S. A. AKINTAN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
A. M. MUKHTAR JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
WEST CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD
APPELLANTS
SANTOS M. BATALHA
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUBJECT MATTER – CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant engaged the services of the plaintiff, an expatriate to render services to it, the Appellant refused to pay wages to the respondent, contending among others that the contract was illegal and therefore, not enforceable.
HELD
The court held that the contract was not ex-facie illegal and since the appellant had benefited under the contract of employment it was not open to him to say the contract was illegal, illegality was not specifically pleaded by the appellant, there appeal lacks merit and must fail.
ISSUES
“1. Whether there was any evidence to support illegality or the violation of sections 8 & 34 of the Immigration Act 1990 Cap 17.
2. Whether facts pleaded were sufficient to sustain illegality of the contract pursuant to S.8 & S.34 of the Immigration Act 1990.
3. Whether a court of law is permitted to take cognizance of illegality where the evidence, which emerges at trial, shows conclusively that there is illegality, though not pleaded.
4. Whether a breach of Sections 8 & 34 of the Immigration Act 1990 Cap 171 renders the contract between the Appellant and the Respondent void and therefore unenforceable”.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ILLEGAL CONTRACT
‘the court will not entertain the defence of illegality unless it is raised in the pleadings unless where illegality is apparent on the face of the claim: PER AKINTAN JSC
ILLEGAL CONTRACT
‘ a contract that is not ex-facie illegal or offend public policy will be enforced by the court. PER AKINTAN JSC
UNPLEADED FACTS
‘any evidence led in respect of the unpleaded fact, whether directly from a witness or extracted under cross-examination of the respondent, would be inadmissible: PER AKINTAN JSC
CASES CITED
Onamade V. A.C.B Ltd. (1997) I NWLR (PL 480) 123;
Iheanacho V. Chigere (2004) 17 NWLR (Ft. 901) 130;
Akaniwon V. Nsirim (1997) NWLR (Pt. 520) 255.
Nassar V. Moses (I960) L.L.R 170;
George V. Dominion Flour-Mills Ltd (1963) 1 All N.L.R 71,
Ogwuru V. Coop. Bank of E.N. Ltd.,
UBN V. Odusote Bookstores Ltd. (1995) 9 NWLR (PL 421) 551
Ogwutu V. Coop. Bank of E.N. Ltd. (1994) 8 NWLR (Pt. 365) 685;
Sodipo V. Lemminkainen OY (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 15) 220;
Ekwunife V. Wayne (W.A.) Ltd. (1989) 5 NWLR (Pt. 122) 422.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Immigration Act 1990 cap 171
