EGBASE V ORIAREGHAN (1985); EFFECT OF NON EST FACTUM ON CONTRACT

EGBASE V ORIAREGHAN (1985): EFFECT OF NON EST FACTUM ON CONTRACT

1.1.0: BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

In most cases, most of the lay persons, who are many in Nigeria, think that whenever they sign a document, then they are bound by it even if the other party used fraud or duress to make the other party sign the document. This is in fact contrary to the fact. The fact is that one can deny or say in court that the document which he previously signed was not his deed and that he was forced to sign it or furthermore that there was a fraud that enabled him to sign the said document. However, with a literacy rate of 63% (2005)12 estimate, and a much lesser percentage of such Nigerians „learned‟ in the real sense of the word, the question therefore is how many people are really aware of their right to repudiate an „almost concluded contract‟ Thus, there is a very much important need to open the eyes of Nigerians i.e. members of the public to the effect of the plea and doctrine of NON EST FACTUM, and particularly its benefits in the light of prevailing scholastic opinions, statutes and judgments (judicial pronouncements) to try and convey the true nature of this doctrine to people.

1.2.0: OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The overall objective of this study is to examine the effect of a plea and/or doctrine of NON EST FACTUM on an already “concluded” contract, using the Nigerian locus classicus on the matter (Egbase V Oriareghan13) as a case study. Specifically, the study aims at achieving the following:      i.        Examine the effect of the doctrine on contracts

  ii.        Examine the effectiveness of such a plea in vitiating the said contract

iii.        Examine the Nigerian situation using the Egbase V Oriareghan’s14 case, which even though is an old case, is still regarded by many scholars as the basic and most encompassing of all cases.

iv.        Also examine the meaning and effect of general pleas of mistake on contracts, 

v.        Recommend other ways of avoiding a contract different in form and character from that intended to sign. 

vi.        Provide answers to questions such as; 

vii.        Does the plea of NON EST FACTUM vitiate a contract or just “the” part of such contract?

 viii.        Can NON EST FACTUM be a defense to an already concluded contract or a „pipeline‟ one? and,    ix.        Is it possible to plead NON EST FACTUM even where one is negligent?

Research materials will therefore be examined and a very coordinated attempt will be made to answer these questions.

EGBASE V ORIAREGHAN (1985); EFFECT OF NON EST FACTUM ON CONTRACT

Chapters: 1 - 5
Delivery: Email

Number of Pages: 85

Price: 3000 NGN

In Stock

Buy the Complete Material Now