The doctrine of quantum meruit allows the recovery of money had and received under an unwritten contract

MRS, OLAYINKA AWOGBORO & ORS (The Administratrixes and Administrator of the Estate of Prince Alfred OlasupoAwogboro Deceased) v. MRS. ROSALINE ODUYEMI& ANOR.(For themselves and on behalf of the Estate of Late Pastor Gabriel Oduyemi)

HIGH COURT OF LAGOS STATE

(NICOL-CLAY, J)

Prior to his death,the late Prince Alfred OlasupoAwogboroadvanced various sums of money totaling US$451,000 (Four Hundred and Fifty One Thousand United States Dollars) and N500,000(Five Hundred Thousand Naira) to the late Pastor Gabriel Oduyemitopurchase a property at Ikoyion his behalf and also to facilitate a joint venture between both the deceased.

The Claimants alleged that the said joint venture never held and the property was never purchased. The Claimantsalso stated that during his lifetime Prince Awogborohad attempted to recover his money from Pastor Oduyemi without success. Consequently, he engaged the services of a solicitor to recover all the monies paid to Pastor Oduyemi. However, two months before the commencement of the suit, the deceased died and his Estate commenced the suit at the High Court of Lagos State. Pastor Oduyemi also died and his personal representatives replaced him.

The Claimants sought to recover the money from the Defendants as money had and received by the late Pastor Oduyemi.

Learned counsel for the Claimants submitted that various sums of money were paid into accounts nominated by the late Pastor Oduyemi.Counsel submitted that on the balance of probabilities,it had been established that the late Prince Awogboropaid themoneyto Pastor Oduyemi for purposes not related to the Bethel Ministries (the church run by Pastor Oduyemi).

Learned counselfurther submitted that the evidence shows clearly that the money was paid to Pastor Oduyemi and not Bethel Ministries and no evidence was proffered to show that the church received themoney supposedly paid as tithe.

Counsel urged the court to hold that the sums were paid by Prince Awogboro to Pastor Oduyemiupon a considerationwhich had failed and was therefore money had and received by the Late Pastor Oduyemi.

On the other side, learned counsel for the Defendants submitted that the relationship between late Prince Awogboro and late Pastor Oduyemiwas that of a Pastor and congregant, and that the US$200,000 (Two Hundred Thousand United States Dollars) was paid by late Prince Awogboroto Bethel Ministries through late Pastor Oduyemi as tithein respect of a money judgment obtained by the late Prince Awogboro.

Alsowith regard to the sums of US$251,000 (Two Hundred and Fifty One United States Dollars) and N500,000(Five Hundred Thousand Naira) paid for the allegedjoint venture,counsel submitted that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary,those sums were given at various times to Bethel Ministriesas donations and pledges by the late Prince Awogboro without imposing an obligation to repay same and urged the courtto take judicial notice of factthat tithes, donations and offerings are made to churches in Nigeria.

Learned counselfurther submitted that there was no document to back the allegation that the relationship was in the nature of a joint venture, and that there was no partnership agreement and no agreement for the purchase of land.

The court, after the close of trial, found on the balance of probabilities that there was a business arrangement between Pastor Oduyemi and Prince Awogboro.

Allowing the claims,the court held as follows:

“The position of the law is that the cause of action for money had and received for consideration that has failed, is founded on the equitable doctrine of Quantum meruit.

The objective is to eliminate the concept of unjust enrichment, itis trite that where a party pays money to another underan ineffective contract, the party who pays is entitled to receive the money in quasi contract as moneyhad and received for consideration that has failed.

See the case ofFirst Bankof Nigeria v. Alexander Ozokwere (2005) 12 CLRN84 @ 87-90 and the test therefore is whether the defendant had or could have personalinterest inthe money whichheis in possession of,or was entirely disinterested.

In this instant case it is, the evidence ofclaimantwitness 1 which was direct thatthe deceased Mr. Awogboro reduced his instructions into writing, by exhibit MOA 5letter dated 18th of November1996, being primary evidence that a great deal of moneyhad been earmarked for expenses expected to finance joint venture businesses with late PastorOduyemi utilizing the pastor’sprevious business transactions and connections, that the Chief Pastor had all the time represented that he had some gigantic business transaction.

S.33(1)(b) ofthe Evidence Act makes the letter admissible, it was made in theordinary course of business, the facts therein contained are relevant facts and proceedings were not anticipated in 1996, to make the provisions ofsection 91(3) of the Evidence Act applicable, it cannot therefore be said that the document was made by an interested person when proceedings were pending when exhibit MOH 5 was made, from the facts before the claimant witness 1 & claimant witness 2 have discharged the burden, their evidence was direct that the sum of USD451,000 and N500,000 was given for theacquisition of property in Ikoyi and as contribution to a joint venture by documentary evidence before this court,it is my view that the late Awogboro did not give monies to Bethel Ministries as tithes, donations or pledges.

The late Pastor Oduyemi obtained money from the late Awogboro as money had and received upon a consideration that had failed, money was paid to Pastor Oduyemi,the estate of the late Awogboro is therefore entitled to a refund of the money.”

Counsel:

Elias Ajadi holding the brief of R. Alli for the Claimants.

Olaniran Obele with Moji Akerele for the Defendants.

This summary is fully reported at (2013) 9 CLRN

info@clrnltd.com

www.clrndirect.com