OKUPE V. LAJA

• Pages: 63-67

OKUPE V. LAJA.



63

The appeal succeeds on the first ground of appeal, and there is no need to

consider any other grounds. This Court has power, under section 26 (2) of

the

Federal Supreme Court Ordinance, to order a re-trial; the use of that power is ex-

plained in

Abodundu and others v. The Queen,

4 F.S.C. 70. It is of course imper-

5



ative that, before the appellant is tried, the trial court should be satisfied by evidence

that he has recovered his senses and is fit to stand his trial; and this involves that

he should in the meantime be under medical observation. We hope that Counsel

for the Crown will arrange accordingly, and furnish the Court of trial with a certi-

ficate under the hand of the medical officer, and give the defence a copy

10



The order we make is as follows:-

The conviction is quashed with the sentence, and the appellant Michael Ogor

is ordered to be tried before a court of competent jurisdiction presided over

by another Judge, who shall first satisfy himself by evidence that Michael Ogor

15



is of sound mind and capable of making his defence, and in the meantime

Michael Ogor should be under medical observation.

Appeal allowed; order for re-trial.

20

OKUPE V. LAJA.

25 M.A. OKUPE



APPELLANT

V

G.O. LAJA RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. FSC 109/1960

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT.

30



BRETT



F.J.

TAYLOR



F.J.

BAIRAMIAN



F.J.

16th March, 1961.

35



Comnzercial Law - Contract - Total failure of consideration - Claim against contract

party for repayment - Payment by stranger, a party to another allied contract

- No evidence that such payment related to the claim in this action.

ISSUE :

40



1. Whether payment of a sum of money to a contract party by a stranger (a party

to an allied contract) in purported discharge of the debt of the other contract

party will not preclude the recipient party from making further claims against

the other contract party.

FACTS:

45



The appellant and the respondent were old friends. The plaintiff had another

friend one L. who was a business associate of his. The appellant contracted with

the respondent whereby the respondent was to supply by installments ten thou-

sand tons of Logs. These he was deliver to L who would check the deliveries.

Ship and sell them and thereafter the appellant would pay. From time to time the

50



respondent informed the appellant that deliveries had been made and L would

confirm this. On the faith of this information the appellant gave

L

over £30,000,

and paid the respondent himself £10,047 - 5s - 10d. Later the appellant discovered

that the respondent had not delivered a single log, nor had L shipped any. The

appellant as plaintiff sued the respondent for repayment of the £10,047 - 5s - 10d