Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Nwaigwe Vs. Transproject (Nig) Ltd (2000) 7(m) (CA)

Brief

  • Illegal contract
  • Terms of contract
  • Witnesses
  • Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
  • Past consideration

Facts

The plaintiff was basically employed by defendant as an Iron Bender in their Jos Office. He was also a member of the Labour Union Local and National namely “Nigerian Union of Construction and Civil Engineering Workers. Sometime in June, 1989, there was labour unrest at the New Stadium site in Jos generated by some expatriate officials in the Defendant company whom the workers accused of calling workers derogatory names like “Black Monkey” and throwing stones at them.

The Labour Union decided to go on strike if the expatriate officers were not removed and repatriate. The said strike action or threat of action was reported in the “Sunday Standard” of 11/6/89. Then came the following averments at paragraphs 5-6 of the plaintiff’s Amended Statement of Claim:

  • "5.
    To frustrate the picketing workers and forestall any damage the defendant engaged the services of the plaintiff for a fee to stand against his union’s decision pursuant to which the plaintiff filed secret report to the Defendant on the activities of certain individual workers and testified against the interest of his union during a government sponsored inquiry.
  • 6.
    Both plaintiff and defendant knew fully well the danger the plaintiff was being exposed to by said agreement which dangers were real as the plaintiff:
  • a.
    Lost the sympathy and protection of his union officials.
  • b.
    Faced physical assault from the workers who battered him at the work place (site) on 14/6/89 and still trailed him to the hospital where he went for treatment to harm him further in the hospital.

The said assault was reported to the Police on or about 14/6/89”,

As a compensation for undertaking the above exercise the defendant company promised orally to pay plaintiff N30,000.00 cash (Thirty Thousand Naira) and to give him one brand new Peugeot 504 car, price of about N130,000.00.

Plaintiff duly performed his own side of the bargain, as a result of which the industrial unrest was amicably resolved without any reprisals against defendants. However, the defendant refused to give plaintiff either the cash payment of N30,000.00 or the Peugeot 504 car or its cash equivalent. Whereupon he instituted this action

The respondent in its statement of defence denied the allegations of the appellant and averred that it was not the efforts of the appellant that brought the was illegal and against public policy.

The High Court held that the appellant’s claim was tainted with illegality and dismissed the suit.

Aggrieved, appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal

Issues

  • 1.
    "Whether the undertaking to compensate the plaintiff/appellant is ex...
    Read More