AFOLABI V. POLYMERA INDUSTRIES (NIG.) LTD

• Pages: 158-161

158



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1967] N.S.C.C.

The Judge rightly treated that as insufficient to prove that the lorry was the property

of the partnership. or being used on the partnership's business.

In addition to that evidence the plaintiffs relied on evidence to the effect that the

name, 0. Alokolaro & Co., was painted on the side of the vehicle. There was a



conflict between the plaintiff's witnesses on this point. One of them, who admitted



5

that he was illiterate, said that the full partnership name appeared, the other said

that the only word he saw was Alokolaro. The judge preferred the evidence of

the literate witness and held that the defendants' responsibility was not proved. We

should not be prepared on the facts to say that he was wrong in preferring the evi-



dence of the literate witness. But even if it were shown that the name, 0. Alokola-



10

ro & Co. appeared on the vehicle we should not regard that as evidence against

the defendants unless it was shown that it was they who caused the name to be

placed there. The law on this point was, in our view, correctly stated by du Parcq,

J.,

in

Green v. Berliner

[1936] 2 K.B. 477, 494, in the following words:-

15

"It is very tempting to say that probably The Salisbury Press, Ltd., whose

name appears on this handbill, really were the printers of it, but I am bound by

the rules of evidence, and the question is: What evidence is there that they

printed it? The handbill contains a statement that it is printed by the Salisbury



Press Ltd. That statement is conclusive against the Salisbury Press Ltd. if they



20

made it, but you do not show that they made a statement incriminating

themselves by showing that somebody made a statement which would

incriminate them if they made it, and if one looks at the document alone, and

no other evidence it is only by arguing in a circle, as it seems to me, that one

can possibly say that it proves anything against them."



25

For this reason the appeal was dismissed but as the respondents did not ap-

pear and were not represented at the hearing of the appeal no order was made

as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.



30

AFOLABI V. POLYMERA INDUSTRIES (NIG.) LTD.

35

ALHAJI R.A. AFOLABI (TRADING AS

IFELODUN BROS.)

V.

POLYMERA INDUSTRIES (NIG.) LTD.

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

BRETT,



Ag. C.J.N.

COKER,



J.S.C.

LEWIS,



J.S.C.

19th May, 1967

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 359/1965

40

45

Contract - Acceptance of offer - Onus of proof

50

ISSUE:

1. Whether in a contractual offer by letter the mere

ipse dixit

of a party is enough

to establish an acceptance according to the terms of the letter.