Topic 6 - Specific perormance Flashcards
BFI Group Corp v BPP
There must exist some contract upon which specific performance is to be ordered. Therefore, where there is no contract, there can’t be an order for specific performance since specific performance is to be ordered for an obligation arising out of the contract.
Lagos State Development and Property Corp v Nigerian Land and Sea Food Ltd,
The Issue: The respondent sought specific performance to compel the 2nd appellant to finalize a sublease and the 1st appellant to grant consent.
The Core Problem: The 1st appellant’s consent, a necessary condition for the sublease, was not granted due to an internal objection. This meant there was no completed, valid contract.
The Ruling: The Supreme Court ultimately refused to grant specific performance, emphasizing that a court cannot enforce a contract that doesn’t legally exist. They also stated that the contract must not be illegal or against public policy.
Archibong V Duke
Specific performance is not an alternative remedy nor can it be granted together with damages. It is a discretionary remedy to be ordered only where damages is not suffecient.
Re Scott v Alvare
It was held that “But when we come to the question of specific performance, I think it is a question which cannot be decided by any such process as saying that if there is a contract good in law a Court of Equity ought to apply its own remedy. From the very first when specific performance was introduced it has been treated as a question of discretion. Whether it is better to interfere and give a remedy which the Common Law knows nothing about at all or leave the parties to their rights in a Court of Law”
LEMARE V. DIXON (1873) L.R. 6 H.L. 414 AT P. 423
Lord Chelmsford held that “The exercise of this jurisdiction of equity as to enforcing the specific performance of agreement is not a matter of right in the party seeking relief, but the discretion in the Court – not an arbitrary or capricious discretion but one to be governed as far as possible by fixed rules and principles. The conduct of the party applying for relief is always an important element for consideration”
Fakoya v St. Paul ‘s Church Shagamu, (1996) 1 ALR Comm. 459
Principles
In land matters, an order of specific performance will be issued in favour of a party when damages cannot adequately compensate the party.
Case Summary
The respondent who had already paid money to the appellant for conveyance of his family ‘s property to them sought specific performance when the appellant refused the conveyance on grounds that the property didn ‘t belong to his family.
Held:
An order of specific performance being the adequate remedy for breach of sale of land rather than damages will be granted to enforce the contract. In principle, the basis of the remedy of specific performance is not the conversion of equitable interest into a legal interest, but the enforcement of a contract where damages would not afford a complete remedy, and although specific performance is more frequently granted where the contract is for the sale of land, in other cases, this is not because of any distinction between the jural nature of a right to purchase land and other contractual rights but because damages are less often a complete remedy for the breach of a contract for the sale of land than the breach of other contracts
British Bata Shoe Co v Melikan, (1958) 1 FSC 100
Jibowu, Ag. FCJ, delivering the judgment of the court agreed that the claim for specific performance of a contract is an action calling upon the court to exercise its equitable jurisdiction in personam over persons who are resident within its jurisdiction. He observed that the position of the High Court of Lagos must be likened to that of the English High Court of Justice with regard to land outside its territorial jurisdiction. Since the High Court of Lagos is empowered to administer law and equity, it has jurisdiction in cases of specific performance of contracts between persons resident within its jurisdiction. Although the land to which the contracts relate may be outside its territorial jurisdiction.
Wilson V. Wilson
It was held that an agreement to regulate rights of parties to a marriage whose separation has taken place or is pending and inevitable, not contrary to public policy can be specifically enforced
Cartwright v Cartwright
The cord will not order a specific performance of an illegal contract or a contract contrary to public policy. In this case, the parties contracted for a future separation. The court refused to grant a specific order for such contract is illegal and contrary to public policy.
Wolverhampton Corp V. Emmons,
the plaintiff acquired land for an improvement and sold part of it to the defendant who covenanted to demolish houses on it and build new ones, the demolition was carried out and plans for new houses approved, the defendant then refused to continue, it was held that specific performance would be ordered since the defendant’s obligations were precisely defined, and damages would be an inadequate remedy as the defendant had possession of the site and the plaintiff could not get the work done by employing another contractor.
Kuri V. Kuri
it was stated that courts of equity will not just grant specific performance of acts which are voluntary, and the party claiming specific performance must show some consideration proceeding from himself.
Akenzua II Oba of Benin v Benin Divisional Council, [1959] WRNLR 1
Principle
An injunction may be granted even though no damages have been caused; but the remedy is not available to a volunteer. Past consideration is not a good consideration. Past consideration is any subsequent promise made in response to an obligation which has already been performed.
Case Summary
The plaintiff, the Oba of Benin and President of the defendant Council sought to recover damages for breach of contract against the defendant Council in that the Council having granted to him allegedly in consideration of services rendered by the plaintiff, a concessionary right to exploit timber exclusively in certain area, withdrew the right without notice. The plaintiff had in the past successfully used his influence as Oba to persuade a company to release some forest areas to the defendant council as a gesture of good will. The Plaintiff sought to recover damages for breach of contract and in the alternative, a declaration of his rights, an injunction and damages.
Held:
The promise of the Council was not binding since the plaintiff’s services actually took place before the promise to reserve a portion exclusively to him was made. The plaintiff’s consideration was past. and he was therefore a volunteer and as such could not claim any equitable relief.
Jeffreys V. Jeffreys
It was stated that although a contract may be legally binding without valuable consideration, equity will not enforce such a contract
GILES & CO. LTD V. MORRIS (1972) 1 WLR 307.
Here the contract was for an opera singer to perform at the Royal Opera House. The court will not make an order for specific performance in such circumstances where it would be impracticable for the court to supervise the proper performance of the contractual obligations.
Cohen v Roche
Case Summary
The plaintiff purchased eight genuine Hepplewhite chairs at an auction. However, the owner of the chairs felt that the price achieved was too low and refused to deliver them. The plaintiff brought an action for specific performance. Held: the goods were ordinary articles of commerce of no special value or interest. Thus, specific performance would not be granted; damages were the appropriate remedy.
South African Territories Ltd V. Wallington,
It was stated that the principle that specific performance of a contract to lend money cannot be enforced is so well established and so wholesome a rule.
Blackett V. Bates
where the contract in question involved maintenance of a railway and continuous supply of engine powder, no specific performance will be ordered for it will require a constant supervision by the court.
Ryan V. Mutual Tontine Association
Where a lease contained a term requiring the lessors to keep a resident porter who should be in constant attendance, specific performance was not granted as if granted, it would be necessary to ensure that the order was being complied with, checking on a regular basis that a porter was present.
Winn v Bill
Contracts subject to condition cannot be specifically enforced where the condition has not been fulfilled.
Karimu v Baba egbe
See above
MBA-Ede v Okufor
The doctrine of part performance as an exception to the requirement of writing for land transactions.
