Okupe M. A. Vs G. O. Laja (1961)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

BAIRAMIAN, F.J

This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment given in Suit No. LD/l78/1959 of the High Court of Lagos on the 7th December, 1959, which dismissed the suit with costs.

Briefly put, the plaintiff’s claim was for the repayment o£10,047-5s-0d which the plaintiff was deceived into giving the defendant as the price of logs which the defendant had supplied, but which in fact the defendant had not supplied at all.

The plaintiff and the defendant were old friends. The plaintiff had another friend by the name of Abdul Raheem Ligali, who was a business associate of his. The plaintiff made a contract with the defendant whereby the latter was to supply by instalments ten thousand tons of logs; these he was to deliver to Ligali, who would check the deliveries, and thereafter the plaintiff would pay.

From time to time the defendant informed the plaintiff that he had delivered a certain quantity; and from time to time Ligali informed the plaintiff that the defendant had delivered a certain quantity; and on the faith of what he was informed the plaintiff gave Ligali over £30,000, and paid the defendant himself £10,047-5s-0d. Afterwards the plaintiff discovered that the defendant had not delivered a single log. Ligali was supposed to ship the logs to Europe on the plaintiff’s behalf: the plaintiff discovered that Ligali had not shipped any. The plaintiff averred that Ligali and the defendant were facing criminal charges about the £42,000. The present suit was against the defendant for repayment of the £10,047-5s-0d given him direct.

The defendant put in a defence, which came to this: he had no contract to deliver logs, and did not deliver any; it was true that the plaintiff gave him the moneys making up £10,047-5s-0d, but it was for logs which the plaintiff told him he had received and for which he asked the defendant to pay the moneys to the persons who had supplied the logs to the plaintiff; and the defendant paid the moneys to those persons; so he was justified in not acceding to the plaintiff’s claim. The defendant gave no evidence.

The plaintiff was the sole witness. In cross—examination he was asked questions about Ligali; and one of his answers was:

“Out of the transaction concerning the 10,000 tons of logs I have received from Ligali £62,000 approximately.”

His other evidence has already been summarised.

The learned Chief Justice accepted his evidence, which proved that he had a contract with the defendant, that he paid the defendant £10,047-5s-0d for logs, and that the defendant did not supply any. The defendant had obtained the money by false pretences, and the plaintiff was therefore entitled to repayment. But the judgment goes on to say:-

Nevertheless, the plaintiff received from Ligali about £62,000 purporting to be the proceeds of the sale of the logs or some of them under the abovementioned contract.  There is no evidence where this money came from but it is a fair assumption to make that the defendant and Ligali were engaged in a gigantic fraud.

So they were; and there is no evidence of the source from which Ligali paid the £62,000. But there is, with respect, some confusion of thought in saying that:-

the plaintiff received about £62,000 purporting to be the proceeds of the sale of the logs or some of them under the above-mentioned contract.

“The above-mentioned contract” harks back to the earlier statement in the judgment that: