Scribd
Upload
70 views

Enemchukwu v. Okoye (2017)

In the case of Ememchukwu v. Okoye, the appellant entered into an oral contract for a BMW car but later claimed a breach due to a misunderstanding about the car's gear system. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's ruling that a valid contract existed, emphasizing the importance of the five essential elements of a contract. The appellant's appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded against him.

Uploaded by

tresnnatua
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
70 views

Enemchukwu v. Okoye (2017)

In the case of Ememchukwu v. Okoye, the appellant entered into an oral contract for a BMW car but later claimed a breach due to a misunderstanding about the car's gear system. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's ruling that a valid contract existed, emphasizing the importance of the five essential elements of a contract. The appellant's appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded against him.

Uploaded by

tresnnatua
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

 ELEMENTS OF A CONTRACT

Enemchukwu v. Okoye (2017)

FACTS OF THE CASE:


In Ememchukwu v. Okoye, the appellant, Ememchukwu, entered into an oral contract with the
respondent, Okoye, in October 2003 for the purchase of a BMW 318 Saloon car at an agreed
price of ₦450,000. The appellant paid ₦300,000 upfront, with additional payments of
₦50,000 and ₦10,000 over the next two days. This amounted to a total payment of ₦360,000,
leaving a balance of ₦90,000. The respondent delivered a car with a shift gear system to the
appellant, who drove it away but later returned it, claiming the agreement was for an
automatic gear system.

The appellant requested a refund, which the respondent refused. Subsequently, the appellant
sued for damages amounting to ₦650,000 and an interest of 20% per annum, alleging a
breach of contract. The respondent counter-claimed for the outstanding ₦90,000, along with
interest and additional damages. The trial court found that the parties entered into a valid and
enforceable oral contract and dismissed the appellant's claim, ruling in favor of the
respondent's counterclaim.

LEGAL ISSUE:
The central legal issue was whether the trial court erred in its judgment by interpreting the
receipt (Exhibit P1) as evidence of a valid contract between the parties, especially regarding
the specification of the car's gear system.

DECISION OF THE COURT:


The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding that a valid oral contract
existed between the parties. It ruled that the appellant's subsequent actions—driving the car
and making further payments—indicated acceptance of the delivered car. The court
emphasized that a contract is binding when the five essential elements are present: offer,
acceptance, consideration, intention to create legal relations, and capacity to contract.

On the issue of the car specification, the court found no substantial evidence to support the
appellant's claim that the contract was specifically for a BMW with an automatic gear system.
The receipt (Exhibit P1), which documented the payments, was interpreted as reinforcing the
existence of the agreed contract terms. Furthermore, the court underscored that it is not its
role to rewrite the terms of a contract voluntarily entered into by the parties.
The appellant’s appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded against him.

KEY HOLDING ON INGREDIENTS OF A CONTRACT:


“There are five ingredients that must be present in a valid contract: offer, acceptance,
consideration, intention to create legal relations, and capacity to contract. All these five
ingredients are essential, and a valid contract cannot be formed if any of them is absent.”

You might also like