VINCENT O. AWOSILE
v.
CHIEF F.O.D. SOTUNBO
1992-LD-SC-418
Supreme Court
19th June, 1992.
Justices:
Muhammadu Lawal Uwais, J.S.C.
Salihu Modibbo Alfa Belgore, J.S.C.
Philip Nnaemeka-Agu, J.S.C.
Idris Legbo Kutigi, J.S.C.
Abubakar Bashir Wali, J.S.C. (Read The Leading Judgment)
Subject Matter(s):
1.Customary Arbitration
2. Estoppel
Final Order:
Appeal Dismissed.
RATIO DECIDENDI
PLEA OF NON EST FACTUM – When a plea of non est factum will not avail a person
“The plea will not be available to a party who signs a document without inquiring to know its precise effect, nor will it be available to whoever signs a document that contains a term to which he would have objected had he read and understood it. Before such a document is declared void, the element of consent must be completely lacking. See Saunders v. Anglia Building Society (1970) 3 All E.R. 96, Gallie v. Lee (1971) A.C. 1004, Oluwo & Ors v. Adebowale (1964) NMLR 17 and Ebose v. Orhareghan (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 10) 884.”
CUSTOMARY ARBITRATION – Binding effect of a customary arbitration
“…the law is that if it was a customary arbitration and was pleaded and proved as such it was binding upon the parties and capable of constituting an estoppel.” See on this – Raphael Agu v. Christian Ozurumba Ikewibe (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt.180) 385; Assampong v. Amuaku (1932) 1 WACA 192. Ofomata v. Anoka (1974) 4 E.C.S.L.R. 251.”
ESTOPPEL – Conditions precedent before the decision of a non-judicial body can constitute estoppel
“…under Section 6 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979, it is to courts and not to non-judicial bodies that judicial powers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria are vested. So, the courts take the view that it is open to the parties to choose whether to follow the normal channel for determination of controversy through the machinery of the courts or to submit the matter voluntarily to the non-judicial body for a decision. If they chose the former, the decision of a court of competent jurisdiction on such a matter would constitute an estoppel per rem judicatam. Where they chose the latter and there was an intervention by a non-judicial body, then the court ought to be satisfied that a number of conditions precedent were satisfied before it could hold that the decision constitutes estoppel. Those conditions are that; (i) there must have been a voluntary submission of the dispute by the parties to the non-judicial body; (ii) the parties must have agreed to be bound by the decision of the non judicial body as final; (iii) that the decision was in accordance with custom of the people or of their trade or business; and (iv) that the arbitrators reached a decision and published their award. For these, see – Njoku v. Ekeocha (1972) 2 E.C.S.L.R. 199; Inyang v. Essien (1957) SCNLR 112; Idika v. Erisi (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt.78) 563; Agu v. Ikewibe (supra).”
CLAIM(S)/RELIEF(S) – Whether the Court can grant a relief not claimed
“The court has no power to grant a substantial relief not specifically sought by a party – See Raufu Owe & ors v. Mohammed K. Owe – an unreported judgment of this court in SC. 397/1967 delivered on 4th July, 1969 and Nigeria Housing Development Society Ltd. v. Yaya Mumuni (1977) 2 S.C. 57 at 81.”
PLEA OF NON EST FACTUM – When a plea of non est factum will not avail a person
“A complaint by a person of full age, sense, knowledge and discretion that at the time he signed the document he did not know its contents without proving fraud, will not avail him a plea of non est factum to avoid the validity and legal effect of such a document. See Igbinosa v. Aiyobagbiegbe (1969) 1 All NLR 99.”
PRESUMPTION OF DUE EXECUTION OF DOCUMENT – Presumption of due execution of a deed executed before a Magistrate containing the illiterate jurat duly signed by the clerk of court as interpreter
“Exh. “B” is a valid and subsisting deed of conveyance executed by him in favour of the defendant. He failed to prove fraud. As it was executed before a Magistrate and carries the illiterate jurat duly signed by the clerk of court as interpreter, I must presume that its execution was valid and regular; and this presumption of regularity has not been rebutted.”
PLEA OF NON EST FACTUM – When a plea of non est factum will not avail a person
“In Igbinosa v. Cole Aiyobagbiegbe (1969) 1 All N.L.R. 99, this Court, while considering the applicability of the plea of non est factum held that- “Where a person of full age and discretion executes a formal deed in the full knowledge of the nature of the document, it will not avail him to seek to nullify the contract by complaining that he did not know the contents of the deed.” What is emphasized in the paragraph above is the signatory’s knowledge of the nature of the document he has signed and not its contents. See also Paragraph 222 of Chitty on Contract, vol. I (23rd Edition) wherein the law is stated thus- “Mistake as to the contents of a deed or document is not sufficient. Where it is the terms of a deed or writing, and not its nature, which are the subject of mistake,the plea will not avail. The writing, deed or document may be voidable for fraud but the contract contained there is not void ab initio.”
