odosa_Esq

LEGAL PRACTITIONER| REMOTE LEGAL & ADMIN ASSISTANT| LEGAL DOCS, RESEARCH, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENTHUSIAST

[odosa_Esq @pannybebe]

@itsjojo35 Let me go vote for my Araga jare

[Nigerian Weekly Law Reports (NWLR) @NWLRonline]

⚖️ Aliyu v. F.R.N. [2026] 12 NWLR (Pt. 2055) 491
SC: By s.22 Foreign Exchange (Monitoring & Misc. Provisions) Act, no person may make/accept cash, local or foreign currency for the purchase of: landed property, securities, vehicles.
Payment must be by bank transfer/cheque only.

[Prince legal tech guy©️ @princetech12670]

WHAT IS A “BAD” ROOT OF TITLE?
Relevant for Practicing lawyers, Bar Aspirants, also the general public.

1. Power of Attorney – generally delegates authority; it does not transfer ownership.
Ude v. Nwara (1993)

[Prince legal tech guy©️ @princetech12670]

Qualities of a Good Title?

1. A good title must show that both the legal and equitable interests in the property is vested in the seller
Lawson v. Ajibulu and Ors. (1997) 6 SCNJ 1.

[Nigerian Weekly Law Reports (NWLR) @NWLRonline]

The defense you didn’t know existed:
Mistaken identity……….. of species.

[Nigerian Weekly Law Reports (NWLR) @NWLRonline]

Whether mistake of counsel should affect the merit of a client's case

Gov., Kebbi State v. Jokolo (2026) 12 NWLR (Pt. 2054) 191 newly reported in today's volume.

Generally, no! The court will not allow the mistake of counsel to adversely affect the merit of his client's case.

[Tobechi Ogazi, Esq. @TobechiOgazi]

A lessee is not entitled to compensation for improvements made on the lessor's land merely because the lessor stood by while the developments were carried out.

Where the lease or tenancy agreement contains no provision for compensation, the Court will not imply one. Parties are bound by the terms of their agreement, and the Court will not rewrite the contract for them.

See: EFREDE & ORS. v. ITA & ANOR. (2020) LCN/14766(CA).

[odosa_Esq @pannybebe]

@cas_Reloaded @Mmakgosidarling Me core😂

[Tobechi Ogazi, Esq. @TobechiOgazi]

Adultery in matrimonial proceedings need not be proved by direct or eyewitness evidence.

Because adultery is usually committed in private, it may be established by credible circumstantial evidence from which the Court can reasonably infer that it occurred.

Where the evidence shows an adulterous disposition between the parties and an opportunity to commit the act, the Court may infer adultery.

See: BELIJE & ANOR. v. UCHECHUKWU & ANOR. (2022) LCN/16012(CA).

[Tobechi Ogazi, Esq. @TobechiOgazi]

A judgment is generally enforceable only by or against the parties to the suit.

Where a judgment debtor dies before the judgment is enforced, the judgment creditor must obtain leave of Court to issue execution against the legal representative or the estate of the deceased.

An application for substitution of the deceased judgment debtor is not a substitute for the leave required to enforce the judgment.

See: OVIAWWE v. IGIEBOR & ORS. (2021) LPELR 56023(CA).

[Tobechi Ogazi, Esq. @TobechiOgazi]

There is nothing improper about a lawyer called to the Nigerian Bar using the title "Barrister" as a prefix to his or her name.

Like "Dr.", "Barrister" is a recognised professional title for a lawyer called to the Nigerian Bar.

See: ISHAKU v. KANTIOK. (2012) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1298) 452.

[Aproko Doctor Global @aproko_doctor]

If you know a child or adult living with a cleft, please let them know that free, high-quality cleft care and treatment is available through @SmileTrainAfric partner hospitals:

https://t.co/kc09JUCh2q

Please repost this. Someone on your feed may know the family looking for help.

[Tobechi Ogazi, Esq. @TobechiOgazi]

A party who accepts and enjoys the benefits of a contract cannot refuse to perform its own obligations under that same contract.

Where a party, with full knowledge of the other party's breach, elects to continue with the contract and accepts the benefits flowing from it, the law treats the breach as waived.

Such a party cannot later rely on that breach to avoid paying for the benefits received.

See: LINGO NIGERIA LTD. v. ARTCO INDUSTRIES LTD. (2020) LCN/14724(CA).

[Akpor Ikogho @legal_padi]

WHERE CAN COURT PROCESSES BE VALIDLY SERVED ON A COMPANY?

Bank of Industry Ltd. v. Obeya (2022) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1821) 589

QUESTION

Can Your Company Be Properly Served with Court Documents Outside Its Registered Office?

ANSWER

Yes. Your company can be properly served outside its registered office. If a court process is delivered at your principal place of business or corporate headquarters, then your company is validly served. Service outside these recognised addresses may be deemed improper.

LEGAL BACKGROUND

Under the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) and the procedural rules of the courts, a company, being a separate legal entity, cannot be served personally like an individual. Instead, service must be effected at its registered office or principal place of business.

The rationale is that a company exists only in law, and its officers act on its behalf. Therefore, serving documents at any of the company’s official addresses ensures that notice is legally and effectively communicated.

FACTS IN BRIEF

In this case, Bank of Industry Ltd. (the appellants) challenged the manner in which they were served with court processes. The appellants argued that service was defective because the court processes were not delivered to their registered office in Lagos but to their headquarters in Abuja. The respondents maintained that service at the appellants’ headquarters in Abuja was sufficient. The trial court ruled in favour of the appellants.

COMPETING ARGUMENTS

APPELLANTS (BANK OF INDUSTRY LTD.)

They argued that service at the company’s registered office was the only valid method of service under the law and that it was improper to serve a company at an unregistered place of business.

RESPONDENTS (OBEYA)

They contended that the service was effective, insisting that they were entitled to serve the appellants at their corporate headquarters to ensure fair hearing.

CORE HOLDING

The Supreme Court held that service of court processes on a company is valid when effected at either its registered office or its principal place of business. The Court rejected the argument that service is valid only if made at the registered office, emphasising that companies, as distinct legal entities, may be served in any manner authorised by law.

WHAT TO LEARN

• Companies can be validly served through their registered office or principal place of business (corporate headquarters).

• Proper service ensures that the company is deemed to have notice of the proceedings.

[Tobechi Ogazi, Esq. @TobechiOgazi]

A lender who is not a licensed money lender is not automatically barred from recovering a loan and the agreed interest.

The requirement for a money lender's licence applies to those whose business is lending money for interest. It does not apply to a person who occasionally lends money, even where interest is charged.

A borrower who has received and benefited from a loan cannot rely on the lender's lack of a money lender's licence to avoid repayment. The law will not permit unjust enrichment.

Where parties have agreed on interest in a contract, the Court may award it once it is pleaded and proved.

See: ROYAL COCKTAIL LTD & ANOR. v. YEATHFO (NIG.) LTD. (2025) LPELR 81610(CA).

[Tobechi Ogazi, Esq. @TobechiOgazi]

In a civil case, not every mention of forgery amounts to a direct allegation of forgery.

Where a party merely denies issuing or authorising a document and states that, if such a document exists, it would be a forgery, that party is not making a direct allegation of forgery. The party is simply denying the document.

In that situation, the burden remains on the party relying on the document to prove its authenticity on the balance of probabilities.

However, where a party expressly alleges forgery as the basis of the case, that party must plead full particulars of the forgery and prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

See: KOLOKO & ANOR. v. NKWONTA. (2020) LCN/14835(CA).

[Tobechi Ogazi, Esq. @TobechiOgazi]

A plaintiff should always file a defence to a counterclaim. However, failure to do so is not always fatal.

If the plaintiff succeeds in the main claim, that success may render the counterclaim useless, depending on its nature.

Where the plaintiff fails in the main claim and does not file a defence to the counterclaim, the defendant's counterclaim remains uncontroverted.

However, where the counterclaim seeks declaratory relief, the defendant is still not entitled to judgment as of right. He must prove his entitlement with credible evidence because declaratory reliefs are granted on the strength of the claimant's case, not on admissions or default of defence.

See: TSUNFADA v. MUTI & ORS. (2026) LPELR 84019(CA).

[Tobechi Ogazi, Esq. @TobechiOgazi]

A notice of preliminary objection before an appellate court does not have to arise from the substantive issues canvassed at the trial court.

A respondent may validly challenge the competence of the appeal itself by raising issues such as jurisdiction, procedural defects, or other matters that affect the validity of the appeal.

Where the objection attacks the competence of the appeal, it is properly brought by way of a notice of preliminary objection. If it succeeds, the appeal ends without the court considering the merits.

Jurisdiction is an exception to the argument that issues must have been raised at the trial court. It may be raised for the first time on appeal and must be determined before any other issue.

See: Youth Party v. Independent National Electoral Commission (2022) LCN/16644(CA); Akpan v. Bob (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1223) 421.

[LawPavilion @LawPavilion]

The absence of an eyewitness does not end a theft case. Doctrine of recent possession allows the court to infer guilt where stolen property is recovered from a person shortly after the theft and no credible explanation is offered for its possession.

RONKE v. STATE (2026) LPELR-

[LawPavilion @LawPavilion]

The mere fact that a survey plan was used in a previous land dispute does not prevent it from being tendered again in a later suit. Its admissibility depends on the law of evidence not on prior use.

Akindele v. Kuranga (2026) LPELR-84110(CA)