Ratio DecidendiRatio DecidendiRatio DecidendiRatio DecidendiRatio DecidendiRatio DecidendiRatio DecidendiRatio DecidendiRatio Decidendi


(2006) JELR 38817 (SC)    

Supreme Court  ·  SC.384/2001 ·  30 Jun 2006 ·  Nigeria
Other Citations
Boniface Anyika & Co. (Nig.) Ltd. v. uzor (2006) 15 NWLR (Pt.1003) 360
SALIHU MODIBBO ALFA BELGORE Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria UMARU ATU KALGO Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria NIKI TOBI Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria MAHMUD MOHAMMED Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria IKECHI FRANCIS OGBUAGU Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria

Ratio Decidendi

Core Terms Beta
statement of claim
exhibit p4
tort of conversion
clearing agent
board of customs
customs officials
department of customs
imported goods
said goods
view of the fact
evidence of pw2
grounds of appeal
leading judgment
case of conversion
case of the respondent
court of appeal
learned counsel
learned trial judge
ogo oluwa motors
surgical orthopaedic chairs
traffic managers special cargo pass
unequivocal act of ownership
above evidence
act of wilful interference
agent of the 3rd defendant
appeal of the respondent
available evidence
case of the appellant
clearing of goods
excise department
exhibits p4
following cases
issue no.1
light of oral evidence
messrs nnawo enterprises
object of pleadings
owner of the goods
pleaded facts
respect of the said consignment of goods
single issue
tally way bill no.
usual practice
y. r. s. ike oluwa

TOBI, JSC (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal. The defendant is the respondent. They had a business relationship. It was the clearing of goods. The respondent is a clearing agent. The appellant is the owner of the goods.

The case of the appellant is that it imported 400 surgical orthopaedic chairs into the country and employed the respondent to clear the goods. It paid the sum of ₦12, 500.00 inclusive of ₦300.00 transportation fee to the respondent. The respondent did not deliver the goods as agreed. Upon demand for the goods, the respondent concocted a story that the goods were seized by customs officials.

The case of the respondent is different. As a clearing agent, he was contracted by the appellant to clear its container purportedly containing 400 surgical chairs. Upon examination by the Board of Customs and Excise, the goods were found to be ordinary chairs, which are prohibited. Customs officials seized the goods and auctioned them to…

There's more. Sign in to continue reading.

judy.legal is the comprehensive database of case law and legislation from Ghana, Kenya and Nigeria. Gain seamless access to over 20,000 cases, recent judgments, statutes, and rules of court.

Get started   Login