PASSCO INTERNATIONAL LTD V. UNITY BANK PLC (2021)

Background

This case involves an appeal by Passco International Ltd against the judgment of the Court of Appeal which upheld the trial court's dismissal of its claim against Unity Bank Plc. The appellant claimed a deposit of N150,000,000.00 made into its current account, which it sought to recover along with interest. The respondent contended that the claim was illegal under Nigerian and UK law, leading to the dismissal of the suit by the trial court.

Issues

The appeal raised the following key issues:

1. Whether the trial court's judgment was based on pleaded facts or acts that constituted ex facie illegalities.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal ignored pertinent sections of the Evidence Act and acted on inadmissible evidence.
3. Whether the judgments of the lower courts were against the weight of evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court articulated several foundational principles regarding:

1. The legal status of illegal contracts: A contract made ultra vires is void ab initio on grounds of illegality, and a court lacks jurisdiction to enforce such contracts.
2. The onus of proving illegality rests on the party raising the defense, and it must be pleaded expressly.
3. Admissions by counsel during trial are binding and affect the overall outcome of the case.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for several reasons:

1. The court upheld the findings of the trial court and Court of Appeal that the appellant’s claim was based on an illegal contract.
2. It ruled that no substantial error was demonstrated in the lower courts’ decisions that would warrant interference.
3. The admission made by the appellant's counsel confirmed the deposit, nullifying its claim of illegality.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court concluded that the appeal lacked merit and affirmed the judgments of the lower courts, emphasizing the importance of legal integrity and the prohibition against allowing parties to profit from illegal actions. The appellant was ordered to pay costs of N100,000.00 to the respondent.

Significance

This case is significant as it reaffirms the legal principle that contracts stemming from illegality cannot yield remedies in court. It underscores the expectation for legal practitioners to adhere to ethical standards, as well as the court’s role in denying relief to parties who would benefit from their own wrongdoing.