Scribd
Upload
13 views4 pages

10 cases decided based on principles

The document outlines ten Nigerian legal cases that illustrate various legal principles, such as the prohibition against benefiting from wrongdoing and the necessity of keeping agreements. Each case is summarized with its corresponding principle, highlighting the court's reasoning and decisions. Key themes include equity, the importance of vigilance in legal claims, and the implications of ignorance of the law.

Uploaded by

chisomf934
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
13 views4 pages

10 cases decided based on principles

The document outlines ten Nigerian legal cases that illustrate various legal principles, such as the prohibition against benefiting from wrongdoing and the necessity of keeping agreements. Each case is summarized with its corresponding principle, highlighting the court's reasoning and decisions. Key themes include equity, the importance of vigilance in legal claims, and the implications of ignorance of the law.

Uploaded by

chisomf934
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Ten Nigerians cases decided based on principles

By Eweputanna Ivy-Mary Adanna

A. Principle : A person shall not benefit from his wrong doing.


Case: AG Rivers state and ORS V Amam and ORS (2021) LPELR-56320(CA).
Here, one of the issues for determination was that the respondent did not join the fourth
appellant agent and servant in the suit, by whose hands and mind the tort complained of was
committed. The appellants here who raised this issue hard custudy of the medical records of
the disease and did not produce it at trial. As such, the respondent could not have possibly
known the names of the agents and servants of the appellant to sue or join them as part of the
suit. The court stated that the appellant had actively hidden medical record in order to be able
to raise this issue. As such, the court in this case held that the appellants cannot be allowed to
benefit from their own wrong.

B. Principle : Equity will not allow a party benefit from his iniquity.
Case: Azeez V Ademola (2019) LPELR-48201(CA).
Here the appellant sort and obtained money from the respondent. When the respondent
brought an action to recover his money, the appellant's claimed that the plaintiff/respondent
had no lawful action on the ground that the loan transaction was an illegal transaction. The
court held that the appellant can not be heard, after receiving the sum claiming that the
transaction is illegal as a cover to absolve themselves from contractual obligations.

C. Principle:
A party would not be allowed to benefit from his wrong
Case: MTN V Corporate Communication Investment LTD (2019) LPELR - 47042 (SC).
In this case the appellant challenged the findings of the two courts with regards to Exhibit A.
The grounds for this challenge was that it was that it was one of the terms of the agreement
that it will take effect from the date the last person signs and that since it did not sign the
document, the document was inadmissible and could not be relied upon as a valid contract
between the parties. The reasoning of the learnt trial judge was that Exhibit A was prepared
by the appellant without any input from the respondent. It was sent to the respondent for it's
signature signifying its acceptance. The respondents complied while the appellant did not
sign, it continued carrying on business with the respondents in accordance with the terms.
The court held that the appellant would not be allowed to take advantage of its own
wrongdoing by deliberately refusing to sign the document. The court therefore held that
Exhibit A was a binding contract.

D. Principle: Equity aids the vigilant


Case: Nkadi V Adjekukor(2023) LPELR-60565(CA)
In this case, the appellant could traced their roots of title to the land. However, the
respondents raised and equitable defence that the appellant was guilty of prolonged inordinate
and inexcusable delay in bringing the action and seeking the release claimed as appellants
knew of the sale of land to respondent, erecting of house by the respondents and putting
tenant by the respondent. Therefore, based on the premise, there was evidence that the
appellant waived his right to claim relief. The court held that the equitable doctrines of laches
and acquiescence is applicable in instances where a party fails to be vigilant and sleeps on his
right.

E. Principle: Agreements must be kept


Case: Stallion (Nig) ltd V Adeojo (2021) LPELR-53258(CA)
Here, the defendants/appellant as tenants agreed with their landlord, plaintiff/respondent to
carry out repairs, renovations and replacement within eight months of the commencement of
his tenancy. The defendant failed to carry out such repairs and recovered part of his money.
On appeal, it was the defendant or appellant's contention that the respondent did not plead
failure of the appellants to carry out the repairs. The court held that they settled principle is
that agreements must be kept based on the maxim pacta sunt servanda. The appellant who
covenanted to carry out repairs has a legal burden to show that he complied with the terms of
the covenant. Failing such, the appellant is to return the respondent's money.

F. Principle: Where there is a right, there is a remedy.


Case: Umekwe V Tasie (2021)LCN/15793(CA)
In this case the appeal court relying on this principle, refused to interfere with the damages
awarded by the lower court to the respondent. The court stated that the appellant must be
deemed to know that a non-violent incursion to a parcel of land in the possession of another
person even if they incursion is as a result of a totally baseless right to the ownership of the
said land by the person committing the infraction should not involve the police. Doing this
made the award of damages by the lower court very all right.
G. Principle: A party cannot benefit from his own wrong.
Case: P.T. Adedeji V Dr Moses Obajimi (2018) LCN/4671(SC)
The issue for determination was whether the CA was right in holding that the appellant who
is in breach of contract ought not to be reimbursed for the payment of #500000 in view of his
breach. The SC in dismissing the appeal commented thus: I find it pertinent here to act in the
interest of equity and good conscience that the appellant who has willingly refused to perform
a contract she has willingly signed and deliberately held the respondent to ransom by refusing
to pay up without word of his loss of interest or otherwise to the respondent, be made to
benefit from his breach.

H. Principle: Ignorance of fact is an excuse but ignorance of the law is no excuse


Case: Nkechi V Anyalewechi(2021) LPELR-55611(CA)
The court in this case held that the appellant and respondent were trespassers as neither could
trace their ownership or alleged co-ownership of the land. The court stated that issues
pertaining to land transactions must be based on documents- Section 7 statutes of fraud
1677 and all interest of ownership of land within the FCT can only be acquired or alienated
by the consent of the FCT minister. The court stated that ignorance of the law as opposed to
ignorance of facts has never afforded anybody an excuse; for everybody is supposed to know
the law.

I. Principle: Equality
Case: Peter Obi V INEC (2023)
Here the court of appeal in interpreting the provision of Section 134(2)(b) of the 1999
CFRN relied on the principle of equality which had also been reiterated in Section 17 of the
same constitution in holding that the that the votes of the voters in the FCT, Abuja did not
have more weight than other voters in other parts of the country.

J. Principle: It is in the interest of the state that there should be an end to litigation
Case: RMAFC V A.G. Rivers State and Anor ( 2023)LPELR-60355(SC)
In this case the court in deciding the effects of failure to join a necessary party in an action
stated that in our adversarial system of jurisprudence, it is important that there should be an
end to litigation on a subject matter and failure to join a party whose interest, whether
anticipatory or not, would be affected goes to the root of the jurisdiction of this court.

You might also like