BEST LAW REPORT SUBSCRIPTION PRICE!!

  • Salaudeen v. Oladele
  • 135
  • 2002-12-30
  • ₦ 200
  • Buy Now

Salaudeen v. Oladele

ALHAJI M. SALAUDEEN

OKIN MOTORS & SONS NIG. LTD.

V

MR. SAMUEL OLADELE

COURT OF APPEAL

( ILORIN DIVISION )

MURITALA AREMU OKUNOLA, JCA ( Presided )

PATRICK IBE AMAIZU, JCA ( Read the Lead Judgment )

WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN, JCA

CA/IL/24/2001

WEDNESDAY, 24TH APRIL, 2002

APPEAL - Ground of appeal - Determination of competency of - Whether lies on what counsel christened it to be

APPEAL - Ground of appeal - Ground based on error of law - Conditions necessary for validity of - Non fulfilment of any of the conditions Effect of

APPEAL - Ground of appeal - Ground of law - Ground of fact and law What amount to

DAMAGES - Special damages - Amount to be awarded - How established

HIRE PURCHASE - Owner of hired vehicle - Whether needs to obtain court order before re-possession of the hired vehicle when the hirer is in arrears of 3 instalments - Section 9 sub-section 5 Hire Purchase Amendment Act 1970

HIRE PURCHASE - Sub-section 5 of section 9 of the Hire Purchase Act 1970 -  Effect of vis-a-vis the right of re-possession of the hired vehicle by the owner under the Hire Purchase agreement after the hirer had

paid 3/5 of the purchase price and in breach of three instalments

JUDGMENT AND ORDERS - Judgment of court - Whether valid and effective till set aside by an appellate court

JUDGMENT AND ORDERS - Order of court - Whether owner of a hired vehicle need obtain same before re-possession of the hired vehicle when the hirer is in arrears of 3 instalments - Section 9 sub-section 5  Hire Purchase Amendment Act  1970

WORDS AND PHRASES - Strict proof - Meaning of in the context of special damages

Issues:

1.            Whether where the Hire Purchase agreement is lawfully determined by the owner, the hirer is entitled to a refund of all the money he has paid to the appellant before the said lawful determination of the agreement.

2.            Whether the appellants are entitled to the counter-claim from the respondents.

Facts:

The respondent is a transporter, the second appellant is a private limited liability company. The first appellant is the managing director and chief executive of the company. Some time in March 1999, the respondent and the second defendant entered into a hire purchase agreement in respect of a Toyota Lite Ace Bus. The total cost is N260,000.00. The respondent made a down payment of N140,0000.00. It was agreed that the respondent would liquidate the balance of N120,000.00 by eight regular and consecutive monthly instalments of N15,000.  The respondent thereafter took delivery of the vehicle. On 20/12/99, the agent of the second appellant forcefully took the vehicle from the respondent at a Lagos park. The respondent had then paid a total of N195,000 leaving a balance of N65,000 and at this time the respondent was in arrears of at least (3) three instalmental payments. Because of the seizure of the bus, the respondent, through his solicitor, wrote to the appellants demanding the refund of the N195,000 which he had paid  on the bus. When the appellants failed to refund the N195,000.00 the respondent as plaintiff instituted action against the appellants as defendants at the lower court claiming for the refund of the sum of N195,000.00 being the deposit and instalments paid on the vehicle arising out of a breach by the appellants of the hire purchase agreement entered into by the parties, cost of repairs, loss of earnings and a declaration that the seizure of the vehicle is wrongful, illegal and a breach of contract, the appellants counter-claimed. At the conclusion of trial the learned trial Judge granted part of the reliefs sought by the respondent. The 1st appellant was dissatisfied with the judgment and appealed to the Court of Appeal.