CaseLaw
Orji V. Anyaso (2000) CLR 1(o) (CA)
Brief
Facts
The appellant offered to sell to the respondent one 250 tons Hydraulic Press Machine No. HYDSF 520 ZU M-NR. 55065 combined with three sets each of three piece fitting and accessories as a composite outfit. The contract was made by Bill of Sale signed by the parties in which the equipment was described as `fairly used' but in circumstances where it becomes contentious whether the sale was made by the seller in his personal capacity or as an agent of a limited liability company. The Bill of Sale stipulated the price of the equipment as N1,200,000 out of which an advance payment of N30,000 was to be made on signing the contract and the balance of N900,000 was to be paid by the purchaser on delivery by the seller … at the (purchaser) factory premises in UmudimVillage, Ekwulummili'. However, the date of delivery of the equipment is not stated in the Bill of sale, an omission that has given room for serious misapprehension about the time of delivery.
In the meantime, before the contract was signed the equipment which was imported from Ghana was at Port- Harcourt Wharf where it was inspected by the respondent and his technical expert After the inspection, the parties signed the Bill of Sale on 10/9/92 with the advance payment of N300,00 made simultaneously by the respondent.
The respondent who was under the impression that the delivery date was to be two days after the signing of the Bill of sale and making the advance payment grew anxious 12/9/92 when the equipment was not delivered to him. As a result, he decided shortly afterwards to check for the equipment at the Wharf. The re4moval of the equipment from the Wharf without delivering it at the respondent's factory as stipulated in the Bill of sale fuelled the respondent's suspicion that the appellant has resiled on his promise and he embarked on a search on the equipment which he eventually located on the premises of a Company called Dozzy Nigeria Ltd. In a suburb of Onitsha.
The respondent reported the matter at the nearby Police Station in Okpoko as a result of which a number of policemen were detailed to keep a watch over the equipment. It was later removed to the Police State when the appellant came forward and confirmed that he was the person who removed the equipment to the premises of Dozzy Nigeria Limited and the involvement of the police in the matter heightened the air of distrust between the parties over the transaction and brought the contract to the verge of collapse.
However, on the mediation by the Police, it was agreed by the parties that the equipment should be delivered at the respondent's factory at Ekwulummili Town after which the parties were to reconvene at the Police Station on 22/9/92 for payment to the appellant of the N900,000 balance of the purchase price. The equipment was conveyed to the respondent's factory and on the parties' return to the Police Station on 22/9/92 the balance of the purchase price was paid to the appellant. The delivery of the equipment and full payment of the purchase price of N1,200.00 were acknowledged on a document dated 22/9/92, Exhibit 'D', signed by the appellant and the respondent and attested by two other persons as witnesses to the transaction.
From the facts of the case the twist in the mode of execution of what ordinarily was a simple and straightforward contract is the genesis of the dispute between the parties over the discharge of the contract the resolution of which was submitted for trial.
The court held that the appellant was in breach of contract and awarded various sums for expenses on informants, drivers, conductors, police escort, et cetera.
Dissatisfied, appellant appealed to the court of Appeal.