Chief A.N Onyiuke iii v. G.E. Okeke (1976)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

D. A. R. ALEXANDER, C.J.N.

The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondent the defendant in Suit No. 0/15/1972 in which the plaintiff claimed from the defendant-

“the sum of one thousand six hundred and fifty pounds (1 ,650) being the value of 110 tins of palm oil sold and delivered to the defendant about the month of February 1969, which the defendant has  refused and/or neglected to pay despite repeated demands.”

Pleadings were ordered by the trial court and were duly filed and delivered by the plaintiff and defendant respcetively. Before evidence was adduced at the trial, learned counsel for the plaintiff and for the defendant both agreed that, for the purpose of eliminating unnecessary evidence, they would be bound by the following summary of the issues before the trial court

“1. That there was a transaction of sale of 110 tins of oil at 1,650 biafran currency.

2. Plaintiff states that the sum of 1 ,650 biafran currency was never paid; on the other hand, defendant states that he paid the sum of 1,650 pounds into A.C.B. on behalf of plaintiff.

3. After the end of the war, following demands made by plaintiff for payment of 1,650, pounds there were two compromise meetings; at the first 20 was offered by the defendant but rejected by the plaintiff; at the second “arbitrators” suggested payment of 40 by defendant to plaintiff but plaintiff refused.

4. Defendant states assuming the facts to be true, defendant is not liable in law
(i) because contract was illegal;
(ii) because contract was unenforceable.”

Both counsel agreed that the defendant should begin by first adducing evidence. The defendant testified that he bought 110 tins of palm oil from the plaintiff for 1,650 biafran currency and paid 1,650 biafran currency for them. The plaintiff in his own testimony confirmed that he sold 110 tins of oil to the defendant for 1,650 biafran currency, but denied that the defendant paid anything at all, and one of the plaintiffs wives also testified to the same effect.

The learned trial judge, in his judgement, stated

“The plaintiff admits that the price was expressed in biafran currency and would have been paid in biafran currency had the defendant paid promptly. The defendant in his evidence said he paid that sum of 1 ,650 in biafran currency to plaintiffs wives but owing to threats from Federal troops and the imminent occupation of the area, the wives asked him to deposit this sum of 1,650  pounds in the African Continental Bank Ltd.

I do not believe that the defendant is truthful in this point. I do not believe that he paid this sum of 1 ,650 pounds to plaintiffs wives or that the said wives gave him the same money with a request to deposit it in the Bank or that he deposited the money in the Bank.”

And again

“In paragraph 17 of the statement of defence the defendant averred that the transaction is unenforceable in law being tainted with illegality. It is common ground that the transaction took place at Igbariam, a place then in February 1969 under the control of the illegal regime called the republic of Biafra and there is no dispute that the parties entered into the contract of sale upon the understanding   that the price agreed at 1,650 pounds would be paid in Biafran currency.-