WEMA BANK PLC v. ALHAJI SOLA OLOKO
(2014)LCN/6941(CA)
RATIO
CONTRACT: THE PRINCIPLE OF THE DOCTRINE OF FRUSTRATION
The case of Taylor v. Caldell (1861-73) ALL ER 24 is cited as the root for the doctrine of frustration where Blackburn J held that:- “where from the nature of the contract, it appears that the parties must from the beginning have known that it could not be fulfilled unless, when the time for the fulfillment of the contract arrived, some particular specified thing continue to exist, so that when entering into the contract they must have contemplated such continue existence as the foundation of what was to be done, then, in the absence of any express or implied warranty that the thing shall exist, the contract is not to be construed as a positive contract but as subject to an implied condition that the parties shall be excuse in case, before breach, performance becomes impossible from the perishing of the thing without default of the contractor”.
Thus,frustration can be defined as an abrupt end to a transaction between two parties owing to the occurrence of an intervening event or change of circumstance totally unforeseen by either party and striking at the root of a transaction. In such circumstances, the law recognizes that the premature determination of the transaction is without any default of either party and thereby renders a contractual obligation incapable of performance and conclusion/enforcement. Per MONICA BOLNA’AN DONGBAN-MENSEM, J.C.A
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: WHERE THE COURT WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE AWARD OF DAMAGES MADE BY A LOW COURT
The learned trial Judge was right in holding that the applicable law for determining the extent of liability cannot stricto sensu be the Bill of Exchange Act In the case of Augustine F. I. Ibama v. Shell Petroleum Development Co. or Nigeria Ltd (1998) 3 NWLR (Pt.542) 493 @ 500 C.A. the court held that:- “the general rule, is that monetary judgment, attracts appropriate interest even where none is claimed.” (See also Rockonon Property Co. Ltd v. NITEL & 1 or (2001) 7 NSCQR vol. 7 171 @ 183)
This court does not form the habit of interfering with the award of damages made by the learned trial Judge except where the decision is perverse and out of tune with the facts and the law before the learned trial Judge. The case of UBN Ltd v. Odusote Books Stores Ltd (1995) 9 NWLR (Pt.421) 558 is not supportive of the Appellant’s as the reasons adduced vide the above cited authority as to when the court can interfere in the award of damages were missing in the instant case. In the case of UBN Plc v. Ajabule & Anor (2011) LPELR – 8239 (SC) @ pp 32-33 my lord Fabiyi JSC held that:- “…an appellate court will interfere with an award by a trial court where it is clearly shown that
i. That the trial court acted upon wrong principle of law,
ii. That the amount awarded by the trial court is ridiculously too high or too low
iii. That the amount was an entirely erroneous and unreasonable estimate having regards to, the circumstances of the case.”
From the judicial authorities cited vis-a-vis the circumstances of the facts of this case, it is clear that the decision of the learned trial Judge of the award of general damages to the tune of N550, 000.00 is not perverse nor based on wrong principle of law as contended by the learned Counsel. Per MONICA BOLNA’AN DONGBAN-MENSEM, J.C.A
