NIG. SUPPLIES MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. V. N B C

• Pages: 35-40

NIG. SUPPLIES MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. V. N.B.C.



35

The appeal is allowed and the order that the appellant shall pay £745 to the

Government by way of indemnity is set aside, but without prejudice to the Attor-

ney-General's right to institute fresh proceedings. The appellant is awarded costs

which we assess at 49 guineas.

5



Appeal allowed.

NIG. SUPPLIES MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. V.

10



N.B.C.

NIGERIAN SUPPLIES

15

MANUFACTURING CO. LTD.

APPELLANT

V.

NIGERIAN BROADCASTING

CORPORATION

RESPONDENT

20

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

SUIT NO. SC 721/1966

ADEMOLA,



C.J.N.

COKER,



J.S.C.

LEWIS,



J.S.C.

3rd February, 1967

25

Commercial Law - Contract - Anticipatory breach - Remedies



Injunction as

alternative to damages - Resiling from - Financial stringency as excuse

Civil Action - Practice and Procedure Injunction to restrain breach of contract

- Whether appropriate remedy - Date of writ among factors to be considered.

ISSUES:

1.

Whether an injunction to restrain a breach of contract can be obtained in

addition to damages for such breach.

2.

Whether once a contract is completed, one of the parties can resile from it on

the grounds of financial stringency.

FACTS:

The defendants, the N.B.C. took a sub-lease of property in Lagos, more par-

ticularly described and delineated in a deed of lease dated 18th February 1960

and registered in the Register of Titles, Land Registry Office, Lagos, for a term of

5 years from 15th January, 1962 at a rent of £26,000 per annum with an option to

renew for a further term of 5 years which option has to be exercised in writing 2

years before the determination of the term of the sub-lease. The assignee of the

reversion to the sub-lease was the plaintiff company.

On 30th October, 1964, the Director-General of the defendant corporation

wrote to the company exercising the option, but on the 31st December, 1964 he

wrote again stating that the Board of Governors of the N.B.C. had refused to ratify

the exercise of the option and purporting to withdraw his previous letter. In a fur-

ther letter he stated that the Board's decision was due to financial stringency.

On

1st December, 1965, the plaintiff company issued a writ claiming:-

30

35

40

45

50

(1) A declaration that the defendant has duly exercised its option to renew the

lease of the building



for a further term of five years



, and