U. B. A LTD. v. TEJUMOLA & SONS LTD (1988) 1 LRLR Vol 1 109

U. B. A LTD. v. TEJUMOLA & SONS LTD. 

Citation

(1988) 1 LRLR Vol 1 109

Alternative Citations

(1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 79) 662

The question for determination in this case is whether it can be said on the evidence in this case that 1st May, 1982, the day said by the Plaintiff to be the commencement of the proposed lease, which no doubt is an essential term of an agreement for the lease, has been agreed to by the parties to this case.

The Court of Appeal, the lower court, agreed with the learned trial Judge as to 1st May, 1982 being the day of the commencement of the proposed lease. In coming to its decision the Court of Appeal considered all the relevant correspondence that passed between the parties on the point including Exhibits E and F. The lower court concluded:

“From these series of correspondence that I have examined, I cannot see in them where the date of 1st May as the date wherein the Appellant took physical possession as being in doubt.”

On appeal, the Supreme Court stated that neither the trial court nor the Court of Appeal, made a definite finding that the Defendant agree to 1.5.82 stated in Exh. F, the plaintiff’s letter to the defendant, as the commencement date of the proposed lease. The trial court said the Defendant did not rebut the averment. The Court of Appeal, for its part said that there was no doubt that 1.5.85 was the date of the commencement of the proposed lease. It did not say positively that the Defendant agreed to this date.

Nnaemeka-Agu, J.S.C. stated thus:

“There is one aspect of the ultimate suggestion made in the lead judgment on which I feel quite reluctant to go along with my learned brother. He suggested that, in view of the enormous expenses which the Respondents ran at the request of the Appellants, counsel on both sides should put their heads together to see how justice could be done to them. I cannot agree to this without pointing out that the Respondents were the architects of their own misfortune. With all the clear story which the quality and language of their correspondences tell, they still elected to act for themselves, for a transaction which could have been worth several millions of naira. It was only after they had ruined their case that it dawned on them that they should brief an experienced counsel, for the court case. This is a height of indiscretion. Yet, it is said that the quality of mercy is not strained. It is only on this ground that I associate myself with the suggestion that counsel should agree on what compensation should be paid to the Respondents for the expenses they ran at the request of the Appellants, inspite of the fact that there was no binding contract between the parties.”

The Appeal was allowed.

Follow @LawRepositoryNG