People dey always wonder, wetin lawyers dey do self?

There is this satisfaction that comes from junketing from one court to the other as a litigator. Perhaps it is because I like talking law.

I used to talk about business. I have been unable to decipher why I suddenly switched from talking business across the Niger with my business brothers and friends to talking law.

I was born into a family of a business parent. I started learning business calculations since I acquired some modicum of the knowledge of right and wrong. Don't get me wrong, I mean when I was 15 years. That was when I started my first partnership business with mumsy.

It was an unwritten arrangement and it was during the pendency of the partnership arrangement that I first learnt to respect the sanctity of an unwritten contract.

Unwritten contracts were quite African, until the abrupt coming of the Whiteman. Though Africans didn't welcome the coming of the Whiteman like many Christian faithful are expecting the second coming of Christ the messiah.

However, there is no gainsaying that the rude invasion of the privacy of Africans, as well as the unforgivable trespass to land and chattels brought some positive novation into the pre-colonial legal arrangements.

The Whiteman hated our traditional settings because they knew it was counterproductive to their intentions to sell us the Bible and the Quran. Africans believed in sharp sharp justice and the swearing of juju was commonplace. Even though juju come later dey chop bribe like our Nigeria politicians and police officers for roadblock.

Well! The Whiteman needed us to conform and reason like them if we all were to work together during the colonial arrangement. After all, it is biblical that " two cannot walk together except they agree".

We soon learnt to read and write, and this meant we could document our intendments and covenants during negotiations, and call it an agreement. The problem was that oral agreements were no longer effective since juju and the ifa priest begin chop bribe.

A written agreement could no longer be varied by oral postulations and our juju nor come dey see markets again like before. Oja come burst for them side. If you wan know how dem take fightback, you fit contact Nollywood.

Few years down this route saw the emergence of lawyers whose core duties was to educate, protect and enforce the legal right of the masses.

The general notion of Africans, especially those of Nigeria breed is that they do not need to engage the services of a lawyer unless they are in trouble. Not just anyhow trouble, serious trouble and they have exhausted their options, including bribing option.

If you are in doubt, you can ask Mr. Magu while he now suddenly needs the services of the best legal brain his money can buy?

Even Magu, the immediate E.F.C.C boss, during his reign on the throne before his sudden dethronement, was an apt exhibition of this mentality by the average Nigerian, until he found himself in trouble and suddenly he now knows and appreciate's 'wetin lawyers dey do'.

I learnt he cried out like the biblical blind Batimeous when he found his mug-shot on the internet. He was also shocked when he discovered the allegations against him. Well! many Nigerians were shocked when he believed more in media trial with mug shots flying all over the internet.

Even E.F.C.C's mug-shot got Presidential permission to continue flying all over the internet space unhindered before front line workers during COVID-19 lockdown. Some persons believe that E.F.C.C won more cases on social media tabloids than in the law court. Well! the opinion is entirely theirs, not mine.

I have always asked "why" as a young lawyer. I couldn't help but agree with the Whiteman that most Nigerian are intelligent mugus, (no pun intended). But why are Nigerians hardworking, religious, intelligent and smart but yet dumb when it came to legal issues? This was one question that plagued my mind for a long time.

This question was finally answered when I became a managing associate in my present place of employment which is owed by a British establishment.

As the head of litigation and client relationship management, I am exposed to broad-spectrum knowledge in a vast area of legal practice. I can't help but agree with the school of thought that postulates that the virginity of the legal profession has not been tampered with.

What was my discovery and why did I agree with the aforesaid school of thought? I discovered that the problem with the Blackman is because they do not know their legal rights. I was further dumbfounded by the discovery that everybody expects them not to know their legal rights and obligations.

Even an average police officer expects a bloody civilian on the street not to know his or her legal rights and the obligations expected of the police officer. They suddenly burst into feats of unwarranted anger and at some other time dumbfounded when they encounter the opposite.
I suppose that is why an average police officer hates a lawyer with passion until he is in dire need of their legal services

Recently, I saw a video clip on Facebook wherein two white police officers attempted to molest, humiliate and embarrass a black business owner in his 30's. His offence aside owning a property in an expensive all-white neighbourhood, was that he was expected not to know his legal rights, and the obligations an average police officer owns him.

I was amazed when he quoted the bill of rights and the obligations expected of the police duo. They were dumbfounded and left him and his girl alone with their head in their armpit.

IT BECAME GLARING that the problem with Nigerians is because we do not know our legal rights and obligations. If we knew what was expected of us legally as an individual and the defences available to us when we make mistakes or find ourselves in difficult positions, we will do better.

It is on this note I welcome you all to Nairaland Law Klinik. This is were Mr. Litigator and his team of over 200 legal professionals will be offering free legal advisory services through cases decided by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal.

If we know better as a people, we will certainly do better.

Welcome on board this journey

Following like a mainland danfo driver

I want like to know my rights regarding poor power supply and the unjust postpaid bill I’m meant to pay every month. I also want to know my rights concerning the power company coming to disconnect my wires without any notification.

Acehart:
I want like to know my rights regarding poor power supply and the unjust postpaid bill I’m meant to pay every month. I also want to know my rights concerning the power company coming to disconnect my wires without any notification.

Acehart:
I want like to know my rights regarding poor power supply and the unjust postpaid bill I’m meant to pay every month. I also want to know my rights concerning the power company coming to disconnect my wires without any notification.

Go and pay your NEPA fees mbok.

"On a charge of stealing, proof of less of the item than what was stated in the charge is sufficient proof of the quantity so proved to establish the offence of stealing."





OFFENCE OF STEALING

Whether proof of a lesser amount stolen is enough to sustain conviction for the offence of stealing





Position of the law

"...The quantity of PMS meant to be discharged at Conoil fuel station was 11,000 litres as stated by the appellant himself. So, it was the 11,000 litres of PMS that were being discharged at the time the PW1 and other law enforcement agents came on the scene that was the quantity out of the 33,000 litres of PMS that was material to the charge with respect to Conoil fuel station. On a charge of stealing, proof of less of the item than what was stated in the charge is sufficient proof of the quantity so proved to establish the offence of stealing. It follows that the fact that the charge indicated 33,000 litres of PMS as the quantity of the PMS stolen by the appellant but 11,000 litres thereof were admitted by the appellant to be the quantity he negotiated and bought on credit and was being discharged for his employer, Conoil, at the time law enforcers came on the scene, sufficed for the purpose of the charge with respect to the 11,000 litres of PMS thus making the quantity of 11,000 litres PMS certain to sustain the charge on that ground."

What lessons did you learn from the decision of the court?


Cc: Uboma

Oya come with your glass of double malt whisky let's discuss law.

onyemechi33:


Go and pay your NEPA fees mbok.

I do pay. But I’m hardly at home. Yet I pay almost 7k every month.

litigator:
"On a charge of stealing, proof of less of the item than what was stated in the charge is sufficient proof of the quantity so proved to establish the offence of stealing."





OFFENCE OF STEALING

Whether proof of a lesser amount stolen is enough to sustain conviction for the offence of stealing





Position of the law

"...The quantity of PMS meant to be discharged at Conoil fuel station was 11,000 litres as stated by the appellant himself. So, it was the 11,000 litres of PMS that were being discharged at the time the PW1 and other law enforcement agents came on the scene that was the quantity out of the 33,000 litres of PMS that was material to the charge with respect to Conoil fuel station. On a charge of stealing, proof of less of the item than what was stated in the charge is sufficient proof of the quantity so proved to establish the offence of stealing. It follows that the fact that the charge indicated 33,000 litres of PMS as the quantity of the PMS stolen by the appellant but 11,000 litres thereof were admitted by the appellant to be the quantity he negotiated and bought on credit and was being discharged for his employer, Conoil, at the time law enforcers came on the scene, sufficed for the purpose of the charge with respect to the 11,000 litres of PMS thus making the quantity of 11,000 litres PMS certain to sustain the charge on that ground."

What lessons did you learn from the decision of the court?


Cc: Uboma

Oya come with you glass of double malt whisky let's discuss law.

Please carry-on, I will post comments later when I get a fully grip of the subject being discussed.


I like to read your legal reports, it is very informative.

We will greatly benefit from this thread as well.

Thank you for creating the time out of your busy work schedule to enlighten Nigerians on their rights and how to demand for their rights.

Admittance of debt: When can a debt be said to have been admitted?


The law is settled that once a creditor writes a debt demand notice(letter) to a debtor, the debtor receives the letter but failed to respond, reply, dispute or deny the debt in its entirety, he is deemed at law to have admitted the debt.

Recently the Court of Appeal expanded this ancient position of the law when the learned Justices posited below.

Once a debt has been admitted, exchange of correspondences on mode and time of repayment of the debt cannot fall within the web of negotiation. Therefore stating "without prejudice" on such correspondences is cosmetic, decorative and impotent and cannot affect admissibility of the correspondences in evidence.


But will the above position change if the letter was marked without prejudice?

"The letter written 'without prejudice' is in pages 15 - 16 of the record. Paragraph 5 thereof
which is in page 16 of the record concludes thus -
"The parties further agree that the amount to be liquidated in accordance with the
arrangements set out above is N66,823,036.22 (sixty-six million, eight hundred and twenty
three thousand, thirty six naira and twenty two kobo only)".

The subsequent letters or correspondence between the parties attached to the affidavits in the case were on modalities of repayments of the admitted indebtedness of N66,823,036.22 in the course of which the appellants made part repayment of N4.5 million.

There was thus a concluded and enforceable agreement (supra) on the quantum of indebtedness and the subsequent correspondence did not therefore derogate from it nor constituted further
negotiation on the quantum of the indebtedness. A letter written with the expression 'without
prejudice' is restricted only to cases where there is unresolved dispute or negotiation is still in
progress and is yet to crystallise into an agreement between the parties to the dispute in which case the letter or correspondence is inadmissible in evidence on the footing that confidential overtures so made should be excluded from evidence on the ground of public policy.

Because if it is not so, amicable settlement of disputes would be difficult and the defendant would be prejudiced and/or unprotected by a grasping adversary who may exploit the amicable arrangement to settle the dispute by relying on an offer made in the course of the negotiation as binding on the person that made it in disregard of the fact that it was made under disputed circumstances or at the time there was dispute between the parties.

In the instant case, the extract (supra) which referred to what was arrived at a meeting between the representatives of the parties on 11-08-1999, while the letter, Exhibit AS1, was on 18-11-99 indicated concluded agreement on the quantum of indebtedness in that meeting of 11-08-99 which is unequivocal admission of the amount in question by the appellants, so the
expression "without prejudice" in Exhibit AS1 became cosmetic or decorative and/or impotent
and did not drain the agreed indebtedness of potency and efficacy vide Greyshot Enterprises
Limited v. The Hon. Minister of Agriculture & Ors. (supra) at 22 - 23 where it was held inter
alia that if, however, there is a concluded agreement the fact that the correspondence is
'without prejudice' would not affect its admissibility in evidence.

Thus in United Bank for Africa Limited v. I.A.S. Company Limited (2001) FWLR (Pt.75) 578 cited
with approval by the learned author, S. T. Hon, SAN, in his great works titled 'S. T. Hon's Law of
Evidence in Nigeria (vol.II)' published in 2012 in pages 858 - 859 thus -

" If 'A' owes 'B' N1,000.00 and "A" writes 'B' admitting that he owes the amount but offers to
pay N900.00 in final settlement, it seems to me that even if the offer is made without prejudice,
the evidence of admission ought to be receivable in evidence...

Now, can it be said that the letters written by the 1st plaintiff's solicitor under the cover
"without prejudice" ought to be excluded from evidence on the ground that they covered
admissions made in the course of bona fide negotiation? I think not.

The solicitor to the 1st plaintiff/respondent never in any of the letters disputed that a loan of N70,000.00 was granted to his client... therefore the plaintiff's solicitor by writing Exhibit BON7 was not in the course of negotiating to resolve a dispute ...

Merely putting the heading on the letter
"without prejudice" cannot in my view make it inadmissible. This was not a negotiation in good
faith to compromise a dispute."

The subsequent letters in question being on the modalities for repayment of the agreed
indebtedness cannot be said to be continuation of negotiation of the quantum of indebtedness
because once a debt is admitted, the mode or time for repayment is a different matter vide
Kenfrank Nigeria Limited & Ors. v. Union Bank of Nigeria Plc (2002) 8 NWLR (Pt.789) 46 at 73
per the lead judgment prepared by Ikongbeh, JCA, (now of blessed memory).

The Court below was therefore right in entering judgment on the agreed sum of N66,823,036.22."


We will be glad to answer your questions

STATEMENT MADE WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Whether a statement made without prejudice during a negotiation can be admitted in court when such negotiation fails




Position of the law

"...That being the law it falls to reason that the letter dated 2nd March 2009 having been made in the process of reconciling the dispute between the parties and so the Court of Appeal was right to have upheld the decision of the trial Court on the document.

The principle is anchored on the basis that at the point of mediation, parties should speak freely all in the quest for a peaceful resolution of the dispute.

This principle of free discussion will be seriously prejudiced or impaired if any offer or admission made in the process of the negotiation could be given in evidence and used in support of a party's case in Court afterwards where the negotiation breaks down.

Therefore when those negotiations are reduced in writing they are usually marked "without prejudice" for the avoidance of doubt and so remain inadmissible against the parties or any of them in the ensuing suit in Court.

However, if the words "without prejudice" is not stated in plain language, it does not detract from the fact that the words are implied in the negotiations conducted in documentary form or verbally.

See Ashibuogwu v. Attorney General Bendel State (1988) 1 SC 248; (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt.69) 138 at 169 which case interpreted Section 198 of the Evidence Act which provisions are impari materia with the old Evidence Act which interpreted the law in accordance with the established cannon of interpretation, reliance being placed on public policy in the protection and service of public interest.

This is all the more germane at this current time where the trend is the encouragement of mediation and resolution of disputes in peaceful atmosphere without resorting to Court process. All I have been labouring to put across is that the Court below was right in its findings and decision on this issue that the said document of 2nd March, 2009 remained outside and inadmissible as evidence at the trial proper."


What do you think the court did differently this time?

In our next piece, we shall be considering if an accused person can raise the criminal law defence of self defence and provocation at the same time.

NB: Yesterday, I received a WhatsApp message from an ardent follower of this thread that I should try as much as possible to water down my style of writing and the usuage of legal jargons. She suggested that this will help followers understand their legal rights and obligations better.

Take notice that we are therefore overhauling the thread to ensure the aforesaid is effected immediately.

Thank you all for following, and please know your legal right to avoid unnecessary embarrassment.

Money stops nonsensical nonsense , but knowing your legal right will stop you from wasting your hard earned money in the first place.

A LAWYER CANNOT ENGAGE IN THE BUSINESS OF SELLING FOR CLIENTS, SAYS COURT

It was settled in a court judgement in 2013 that a lawyer has no requisite educational learning, practical training, certification/licensing, & any backing in law to either sell or lease or manage land, buildings & facilities for clients in Nigeria.
See below the court judgement on this matter in 2013:

=================================

Did you know that the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) for lawyers in Nigeria does not allow lawyers engage in the business of buying & selling?

Well, read the case of NBA v Ibebunjo (2013) 18 NWLR (Pt.1386) and find out how selling lands for clients can make a lawyer to be derobed!
(Note: NBA means “Nigerian Bar Association”)

On whether the business of selling land is incompatible with the practice of law, the Judge held as follows:

By virtue of rule 7(3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, the business of selling land is a trade or business incompatible with the practice of law. In the instant case, the respondent was clearly doing illegal business to sell land.

“As it relates to count 2, it is clear beyond per adventure that the business of selling land is a trade or business incompatible with the practice of law. Rule 7(3) clearly provides the category of business that are compatible with the practice of law. From what we have reproduced above the respondent was clearly playing with fire when he was using the platform of his legal practice to sell land. The justice of this case demands that we allow him go full time into his main business of selling of land and to leave the business of practicing law to those who are bona fide legal practitioners.”

NBA v Ibebunjo (2013) 18 NWLR (Pt.1386) 413 @428, paras. A-C






NB: No Propertary rights.

litigator:
Unwritten contracts were quite African, until the abrupt coming of the Whiteman. Though Africans didn't welcome the coming of the Whiteman like many Christian faithful are expecting the second coming of Christ the messiah.

However, there is no gainsaying that the rude invasion of the privacy of Africans, as well as the unforgivable trespass to land and chattels brought some positive novation into the pre-colonial legal arrangements.

The Whiteman hated our traditional settings because they knew it was counterproductive to their intentions to sell us the Bible and the Quran. Africans believed in sharp sharp justice and the swearing of juju was commonplace. Even though juju come later dey chop bribe like our Nigeria politicians and police officers for roadblock.

Well! The Whiteman needed us to conform and reason like them if we all were to work together during the colonial arrangement. After all, it is biblical that " two cannot walk together except they agree".

We soon learnt to read and write, and this meant we could document our intendments and covenants during negotiations, and call it an agreement. The problem was that oral agreements were no longer effective since juju and the ifa priest begin chop bribe.

A written agreement could no longer be varied by oral postulations and our juju nor come dey see markets again like before. Oja come burst for them side. If you wan know how dem take fightback, you fit contact Nollywood.

Few years down this route saw the emergence of lawyers whose core duties was to educate, protect and enforce the legal right of the masses.

The Law of Contracts is First and Foremost, Regulated by Natural Law via the Doctrines of Equity, Good Conscience and Good Faith.

And All things in this world are Regulated by Natural Law.

Therefore, Natural Law dictates that "A man shall Speak Truthfully and be bound by his word".

Therefore it is not necessary (unless it is) that a contract should be set down in writing.

And that is why Natural Law upholds that once the Parties agree to do a good thing, that which they agreed to do, must be done and they must be compelled to so do it.

It is Fraud and Wickedness to insist that a contract must be in writing.

Therefore the Practice of Unwritten Contracts by Africans is Rightful and Law Full.

It is because of Fraud to be implemented by their Fraudulent Courts that those Armed Robbers fraudulently Called Colonialist Taught and Deceived many that written contracts are "better" knowing that all Frauds and Deceits Must Fail Under Natural Law, which does not support the doing of wrongs or evil but only Goodness!

litigator:


The Whiteman hated our traditional settings because they knew it was counterproductive to their intentions to sell us the Bible and the Quran. Africans believed in sharp sharp justice and the swearing of juju was commonplace. Even though juju come later dey chop bribe like our Nigeria politicians and police officers for roadblock.

Well! The Whiteman needed us to conform and reason like them if we all were to work together during the colonial arrangement. After all, it is biblical that " two cannot walk together except they agree".

The African Believes in Natural Law, Fairness and Equity (if you fight for it), Good Conscience and Good Faith all of which are enemies to those Oyinbo Thieves, Schemers and Liars!

But because they prevailed over Africans, they have been able to teach the African their Lies and Schemes which is what you see today in everything.

litigator:

We soon learnt to read and write, and this meant we could document our intendments and covenants during negotiations, and call it an agreement. The problem was that oral agreements were no longer effective since juju and the ifa priest begin chop bribe.

I admit that they brought us some good things (and they are supposed to) But I know that "No one would thank a person who gives poisoned food to an hungry man" neither shall any man thank you for giving him adulterated fuel, even if 50liters for use in his car or generator.

litigator:

A written agreement could no longer be varied by oral postulations and our juju nor come dey see markets again like before. Oja come burst for them side. If you wan know how dem take fightback, you fit contact Nollywood.

Few years down this route saw the emergence of lawyers whose core duties was to educate, protect and enforce the legal right of the masses.

It is Wrong Law to state that "A written agreement could no longer be varied by oral postulations" because Every Contract is Willing and Wilfully Made by the Natural Person.

Therefore, that Natural Person ALWAYS ALWAYS RETAINS THE RIGHT AND POWER TO VARY ANY AGREEMENT he enters into, whether written or oral.

Because, it is given and provided by Natural Law that A Person makes the Law, which Natural Law would hold him bound (the bindingness of every Contract).

Thus, a person makes the law and the law which he makes, does not make him and can never make him neither can it hold him.

For it is Natural Law who holds a person bound and Natural Law has Provided that a man may regulate himself as he deems fit, necessary and Good to make, whether orally or in writing or by his acts.

Dtruthspeaker:


It is Wrong Law to state that "A written agreement could no longer be varied by oral postulations" because Every Contract is Willing and Wilfully Made by the Natural Person.

Therefore, that Natural Person ALWAYS ALWAYS RETAINS THE RIGHT AND POWER TO VARY ANY AGREEMENT he enters into, whether written or oral.

Because, it is given and provided by Natural Law that A Person makes the Law, which Natural Law would hold him bound (the bindingness of every Contract).

Thus, a person makes the law and the law which he makes, does not make him and can never make him neither can it hold him.

For it is Natural Law who holds a person bound and Natural Law has Provided that a man may regulate himself as he deems fit, necessary and Good to make, whether orally or in writing or by his acts.

Kindly provide either statutory or judicial authority to back your assertion that oral evidence can vary the content of a written contract.

Let's start from there.

I will also furnish both judicial authority which posits that the position of the law is settled that the contents of a written contract cannot varied by oral evidence.

I am well aware of the exceptions as it concerns "Novation".



Welcome on board L.F

Let educate ourselves and Nairalanders on the position of the law.

Dtruthspeaker:


I admit that they brought us some good things (and they are supposed to) But I know that "No one would thank a person who gives poisoned food to an hungry man" neither shall any man thank you for giving him adulterated fuel, even if 50liters for use in his car or generator.

Well! This depends on perspective. We should stop crying foul and playing the victim. How long can we do this?

litigator:


Kindly provide either statutory or judicial authority to back your assertion that oral evidence can vary the content of a written contract.

Let's start from there.

I will also furnish both judicial authority which posits that the position of the law is settled that the contents of a written contract cannot varied by oral evidence.

I am well aware of the exceptions as it concerns "Novation".



Welcome on board L.F

Let educate ourselves and Nairalanders on the position of the law.

Principles of Natural Law and Justice, Equity and Good Conscience eg

"Consent makes the law"

No one is obligated to do the impossible

It is fair to consider the good faith of Contracts.

Good faith is always presumed, if bad faith is not proven.

The possessor in good faith makes, his, the fruits consumed.

An action is good, only, if, each element in it, Is Good; it is bad, if Any One of those elements is, bad

These are many Legal Principles are my Authorities.

Statute, is a Fraud and Judicial Decisions have been perverted but The Principles of Natural Justice, Equity and Good Conscience have Remained Unchanged.

litigator:


Well! This depends on perspective. We should stop crying foul and playing the victim. How long can we do this?

We are victims but Nigerians must know what they are doing at all times and take control of their own affairs.

We were a Free People, We must be free and act freely, as granted by our Great Creator!

Dtruthspeaker:


We are victims but Nigerians must know what they are doing at all times and take control of their own affairs.

We were a Free People, We must be free and act freely, as granted by our Great Creator!

Every nation went through captivity. Many will still undergo the process, so says our history books. Yes, I agree that the system is unfair and unfortunately, many will still go through the system. The question is what are you doing about it?

Are you going to sit by the Rivers of Babylon, weeping and wailing like the Israelites in captivity or are you going to pursue, overtake and recover all?

I seem to prefer the latter . It works better . Nehemiah did it, and the king gave him the resources and manpower to rebuild from the lowest low to the highest highs.

Ain't no Bob Marley and the Wailers.

Dtruthspeaker:


Principles of Natural Law and Justice, Equity and Good Conscience eg

"Consent makes the law"

No one is obligated to do the impossible

It is fair to consider the good faith of Contracts.

Good faith is always presumed, if bad faith is not proven.

The possessor in good faith makes, his, the fruits consumed.

An action is good, only, if, each element in it, Is Good; it is bad, if Any One of those elements is, bad

These are many Legal Principles are my Authorities.

Statute, is a Fraud and Judicial Decisions have been perverted but The Principles of Natural Justice, Equity and Good Conscience have Remained Unchanged.

I understand your point.

But before covenants and intendment are reduced into writing, salient ingredients must be present, otherwise, the contract is a nullity in law.

The key ingredients are;
a. There must be a capacity to contract,
b. There must exist an intention to create legal relation ( this gives each contracting parties the power to sue or enforce the contract against the party in breach),
c. There must be an offer, and an acceptance backed by consideration, except in unilateral contracts such as a simple Power of Attorney.

Also for parties not learned in the usage of English language, there is the presence of an illiterate jurat as provided by the Statute of Frauds.

The illiterate protection clauses are to ensure one is not cheated in a contract and to avoid circumstances of non - est factum ( not my deeds).

By the way, non-est factum is a valid defence available to a party who executed the contract, while labouring under false representations or outright misrepresentation of facts with an intention to defraud.

Such a party can outrightly repudiate the contract and sue form damages.

I see this defences a lot in my job as a mortgage specialist redeeming mortgage outstandings for top- tier banks.

But from my experience, a large chunk of Nigerians do not respect the sanctity of contracts.

We can't always shift the goal post, we need to take responsibility if we must grow. The law is balanced in this regard.

The picture below explains what Nigerians fail to do first, and it's a natural law that you cannot eat your cake and have it.

At times, not even the innocent bystander.

But the question still remains, how well do we know and understand our legal rights and obligations as Nigerians?

The truth is we cannot give what we do not have. If we know better, we will do better.

That is why we have this Nairaland law klinik.

I rise.

Cc: Uboma
BelongTrendies
Blessedkingg

OP, pls what is the position of the law concerning a creditor selling off a debtor's property, without any court order or legal processes?

bigiyaro:
OP, pls what is the position of the law concerning a creditor selling off a debtor's property, without any court order or legal processes?

Resort to self-help is usually frowned by the law courts, but again, parties are bound by the terms of the contract they freely entered into.
So it depends on the circumstances or the facts surrounding the action and contract. The sale could be challenged, but what was the contract between parties?

You can send a PM, connect on WhatsApp, or send a mail if you feel you do not wish to put private details in public space. I stand the risk of not proffering an informed position of the law if I do not examine the facts. Check my profile for my contact details.

litigator:

I understand your point.

But before covenants and intendment are reduced into writing, salient ingredients must be present, otherwise, the contract is a nullity in law

.

This is not True. Every Contract is clear on the face of it and the respective obligations owed towards fulfilment of same is known.

It is Only because CERTAIN PERSONS INTEND TO DEAL FRAUDULENTLY or in bad faith, that is why determining the scope of liability is necessary.

I am sure you do not know that the history of rules of contracts (not Law) evolved from Bad Faith Agreements which was upheld by Bad Faith Courts.

Hence, when the Bad Faith man had Bad-faithed Each Other, they proposed Ceasefire Agreements (Erroneously call law of contract) which is mostly for themselves while they continue to enter into Bad Faith contracts with weaker simple people, who deal in Good faith, citing fabricated laws as their grounds for the illegal actions forgetting the Law "No One Consents to the Doing of a Harm" and other Principles of Natural Law and Equity and of course Bad faith is not Good Conscience.

Dtruthspeaker:
.

This is not True. Every Contract is clear on the face of it and the respective obligations owed towards fulfilment of same is known.

It is Only because CERTAIN PERSONS INTEND TO DEAL FRAUDULENTLY or in bad faith, that is why determining the scope of liability is necessary.

I am sure you do not know that the history of rules of contracts (not Law) evolved from Bad Faith Agreements which was upheld by Bad Faith Courts.

Hence, when the Bad Faith man had Bad-faithed Each Other, they proposed Ceasefire Agreements (Erroneously call law of contract) which is mostly for themselves while they continue to enter into Bad Faith contracts with weaker simple people, who deal in Good faith, citing fabricated laws as their grounds for the illegal actions forgetting the Law "No One Consents to the Doing of a Harm" and other Principles of Natural Law and Equity and of course Bad faith is not Good Conscience.

I quite agree with you. You are correct.

But your postulation is more tinted towards morality and the philosophy of law.

But the truth is that the law is blind and law is quite different from morality.

Law is law and morality is morality just like the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans, they don't mix.

I am a litigator,a legal gladiator. I am war, I am fight and not a preacher of morality. I am idabosky .....

You should complete it.

litigator:


The key ingredients are;
a. There must be a capacity to contract,
b. There must exist an intention to create legal relation ( this gives each contracting parties the power to sue or enforce the contract against the party in breach),
c. There must be an offer, and an acceptance backed by consideration, except in unilateral contracts such as a simple Power of Attorney.

Also for parties not learned in the usage of English language, there is the presence of an illiterate jurat as provided by the Statute of Frauds.

The illiterate protection clauses are to ensure one is not cheated in a contract and to avoid circumstances of non - est factum ( not my deeds).

By the way, non-est factum is a valid defence available to a party who executed the contract, while labouring under false representations or outright misrepresentation of facts with an intention to defraud.

Such a party can outrightly repudiate the contract and sue form damages.

I see this defences a lot in my job as a mortgage specialist redeeming mortgage outstandings for top- tier banks.

But from my experience, a large chunk of Nigerians do not respect the sanctity of contracts.

We can't always shift the goal post, we need to take responsibility if we must grow. The law is balanced in this regard.

The picture below explains what Nigerians fail to do first, and it's a natural law that you cannot eat your cake and have it.

At times, not even the innocent bystander.

But the question still remains, how well do we know and understand our legal rights and obligations as Nigerians?

The truth is we cannot give what we do not have. If we know better, we will do better.

That is why we have this Nairaland law klinik.

I rise.

Cc: Uboma
BelongTrendies
Blessedkingg

Really, straight out of a textbook? I sent you a PM it is expedient you respond.