C.F.A.O. V. BAMGBALA & ANOR

• Pages: 259-263

C.F.A.O. V. BAMGBALA & ANOR



259

C.F.A.O. V. BAMGBALA & ANOR

5

COMPAGNIE FRANCAISE DE

L'AFRIQUE OCCIDENTALE



APPELLANTS

10



V

1.

BAMGBALA



RESPONDENTS

2.

DEPUTY SHERIFF, LAGOS

SUIT NO. SC 387/1967

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

15



LEWIS,



J.S.C.

MADARIKAN,



J.S.C.

FATAI-WILLIAMS, J.S.C.

27th June, 1969.

20



Contract - Rescission - Claim for rescission must be made promptly - Legal

limitation period an outside limit only - Specific performance - Claim for

specific performance must be made as soon as possible - Doctrine of ladies -

Limitation of actions - Contract.

25

ISSUES:

1.

Why must a claim for rescission of contract be made promptly ?

2.

How soon should a claim for specific performance of a contract be made?

FACTS:

The 1st respondent brought an action in the High Court of Lagos against the

30



appellant for rescission of a sale of land and repayment of the purchase price.

The 1st respondent bought land at an execution sale conducted by the 2nd re-

spondent at the instance of the appellant as judgment creditor. The land was de-

scribed in the notice of sale as freehold, which was a misrepresentation. Nearly

six years after becoming aware of the misrepresentation, the 1st respondent in-

35



stituted the present proceedings against the appellant and the 2nd respondent,

claiming rescission of the sale on the ground of the misrepresentation. The High

Court rejected a defence plea of 'aches and gave judgment for the 1st respond-

ent.

On appeal the appellant contended that in equity the limitation period of six

40



years was only an outside limit to allowable delay and that what was required was

promptitude in seeking relief. The 1st respondent contended that the practice of

courts of equity was to apply legal limitation periods to equitable claims.

HELD:

1.

That a claim for rescission of a contract must be made promptly since the

45



defendant may be altering his position on the faith of the contract and although

the longest permissible period of delay is fixed by the relevant statute of

limitation, this is an outside limit and is inapplicable where a shorter period

would be too long.

2.

That specific performance is granted only if the plaintiff seeks it promptly and

50



as soon as the nature of the case permits, and any substantial delay, such as

a year, or probably less, after the negotiation has terminated will be a bar.