EGBASE V. ORIAREGHAN
| Pages | 1219-1239 |
EGBASE V. ORIAREGHAN
1219
5
EGBASE V. ORIAREGHAN
SYLVESTER D.E. EGBASE
APPELLANT
V
10 AUGUSTINE 0. ORIAREGHAN
RESPONDENT
SUIT NO. SC 156/1984
SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
IRIKEFE,
J.S.C.
ESO,
15
COKER,
KARIBI-WHYTE,
KAWU,
18th October, 1985
J.S.C.
J.S.C.
J.S.C.
J.S.C.
20
Commercial Law - Contract - Mistake - Nature of document - Plea of non est
factum - Burden of proof - Contract by defendant for the sale of his house
to plaintiff with condition for repurchase within six months - Repudiated by
defendant on the ground that agreement was for six months loan on security
of his house - Document correctly read and explained to defendant who
25
admittedly was compelled by his dire financial need to sign it - Defendents
onus not discharged - High Court judgment rejecting plea wrongly set aside
by Court of Appeal.
ISSUES:
30
1. When does the plea of
non est factum
arise so as to invalidate a document.
2.
When will such a plea not avail a party to the document?
3.
Whether it is the nature of or the content of a document that is in issue in a plea
of
non est factum.
4.
Whether the failure to use the word 'sale' in a document will affect the character
35
of such sale.
5.
When will a document be rendered totally void.
FACTS:
The plaintiff/appellant had entered into an agreement which named the parties
as 'vendor' and 'purchaser' the conditional sale of the defendant's house to the
40
plaintiff for N500, on the condition that if the defendant could repay the said N500
within six months, he would have an opportunity of buying the house back. De-
fendant signed the agreement which was explained to him, but could not pay back
the N500 within the specified time. At the expiration of the 6 months, the plaintiff
claimed N15 rent per month from the defendant, as landlord. The defendant paid
45
this for 3 months, then stopped paying, contending that the agreement was not for
the sale of his house, but rather that his house was a security for the loan. The
plaintiff brought an action in the High Court, and the defendant pleaded
non est
factum.
However, he did not discharge the burden on him to prove that he did not
understand the document that he signed. The judgment was reversed on appeal
50
to the Court of Appeal on the ground that the defendant could not have honestly
agreed to sell his house. They upheld defendants plea of
non est factum.
They
also held that there could have been no contemplation of sale since the word sale
was not mentioned in the document. The appellant thus appealed to the Supreme
Court, contending that the defendant did not prove
non est factum.
1220
NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES
[1985] 2 N.S.C.C.
HELD:
1.
Cases on
non est factum
occur when a person is induced by the false statement
of another to sign a written document containing contract that is fundamentally
different in character from that which he contemplated. The plea of
non est
factum
is a plea which must necessarily be kept within narrow limits. Much
5
confusion and uncertainty would result in the field of contract and elsewhere if
a man were permitted to try to disown his signature simply by asserting that he
did not understand that which he had signed.
"Muskham Ltd. v. Howard
(1963)
1 All E.R. 81
2.
Where a person of full age and discretion executes a formal deed in full
10
knowledge of the nature of the document it will not avail him to seek to nullify
the contract by complaining that he did not' know the contents of the deed. And
where fraud is neither pleaded nor proved against the plaintiff (as in the case)
by the defendant it is trite law that fraud will not be upheld in support of the plea.
3.
What is necessary in raising the plea of
non est factum
is full knowledge of the
15
nature and not knowledge of the contents of the document.
4.
Whether the formal deed contained the word "Sale" or not is a matter of detail
of the content. The character of the sale is intact. And even without the word
"Sale", the deed need the words "Vendor" and "Purchaser" and it is very
elementary that both these words deal with "Sale and nothing else. The
20
conclusion of the learned Justice of Appeal was questionable.
5.
A document should be held to be void only when the element of consent to it
is totally lacking that is, more concretely when the transaction which the
document purports to effect is essentially different in substance or in kind from
the transaction intended:
Gallie v. Lee
(1971) A.C. 1004.
25
6.
The respondent has been found by the learned trial judge to be of full age and
understanding. He was found to be literate. He signed the document which
his own solicitor at his own request, prepared, read to him and placed before
him for signature. It is now idle of him to turn round and feign ignorance. The
defence of
non est factum
fails & the judgment of the Court of Appeal reversed.
30
Judgment of the trial Court restored.
CASES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT:
1.
Foster v. Mackinnon
(1869) L.R. 4 C.P. 704.
2.
Gallie v. Lee
(1971) A.C. 1004.
35
3.
lgbinovia v. Cole Aiyobagbiegbe
(1969) 1 All N.L.R.
4.
George v. Dominion Flour Mills
(1963) 1 All N.L.R. 71.
5.
Sounders v. Anglia Building Society
(1970) 3 All E.R. 961.
6.
Muskham Finance Ltd. v. Howard
(1963) 1 All E.R. 81.
7.
Balogun & Ors. v. Agboola
(1974) 1 All N.L.R. (Pp 2) 66.
40
8.
Ogbero Egri v. Ededho Uperi
(1974) 1 N.M.L.R. 22.
9.
Bakare Folownso v. Adeyemi
(1975) 1 N.M.L.R. 128.
10.Kpanuglo v. Kodaja
(1933) 2 W.A.C.A. 24.
11.
U.T.C.N.
v.
Tetteh
(1965) A.L.R. Comm. 100.
12.
Thoroughgocd's case
(1594) 2 Co. Rep. 9a.
45
J.E. Ojeme
for Appellant.
F.U. Azeta
for Respondent.
COKER, J.S.C.:
(Delivering the Lead Judgment): On the 17th day of September
50
1985, I allowed the plaintiff's appeal and restored the judgment delivered on 18th
January, 1980 by Aluyi, J. in the Bendel State High Court, which was reversed by
the court below on 26th January 1983, and I indicated the reasons for my decision
will be given today.
To continue reading
Request your trial