Benjamin Obilor

27/08/2026

Illiteracy as a Defence in Nigerian Contract Law

In Nigerian contract law, illiteracy can be a valid defence where a person signs a document they do not understand — especially if the contents were not explained to them properly. In such cases, the courts rely on the equitable Latin maxim:

“Non est factum” – It is not my deed.

This principle protects illiterate persons who, due to deception, fraud, or lack of proper explanation, were unaware of the nature of the document they signed. The general rule is:

“Quicunque vult alienum instrumentum implere, tenetur ostendere quod mens ejus cm scripto conjuncta fuit.”
(Whoever wishes to enforce another’s deed must show that the signer’s mind went with the writing.)

This means that unless the illiterate person understood and agreed to the terms, the contract may be void or unenforceable.

To avoid this, the literate party has a duty to:

Explain the document in a language the illiterate understands

Include an illiterate jurat confirming this

Provide proof of explanation and understanding

The law does not punish illiteracy — it punishes deceit.

27/08/2026

A ₦10 MILLION BUSINESS TRANSACTION CAN GO WRONG BECAUSE OF ONE PARAGRAPH IN A CONTRACT.

One vague clause.
One missing obligation.
One poorly drafted sentence.

And suddenly, a transaction worth millions becomes a dispute worth even more.

Never sign a contract simply because you trust the other party. Sign it because your interests are clearly protected.

Before you commit ₦10 million, spend a little to understand what you’re actually signing.
A lawyer’s fee may feel expensive—until you compare it with the cost of a bad contract.

Read the fine print. Protect your business. Get legal advice before you sign.

27/08/2026

27/08/2026

A Critical Analysis of the Supreme Court’s Decision in Ugbah & Ors v. Ugbah (2025) LPELR-81732 (SC)_by B. C OBILOR ESQ.

The recent Supreme Court decision in Ugbah & Ors v. Ugbah (2025) LPELR-81732 (SC) has reignited discussion around the delicate intersection of matrimonial rights, procedural law, and the welfare of dependants in Nigeria. The apex court was invited to determine whether a wife and children could validly institute an action for maintenance, welfare, and education while the marriage is still subsisting and without invoking the formal machinery of divorce or judicial separation under the Matrimonial Causes Act (MCA).

Mrs. Veronica Ugbah had approached the High Court seeking maintenance for herself, school fees for her children, and provision for alternative accommodation. Her husband, Mr. Patrick Ugbah, challenged the competence of the suit, arguing that such reliefs could only be sought under a matrimonial petition pursuant to the MCA. While the High Court rightly dismissed his objection, the Court of Appeal reversed that position, holding that the wife’s action was incompetent because it was not anchored on a matrimonial petition.

In a progressive and welfare-oriented judgment, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and restored the High Court’s ruling. The Court held that a wife need not file for divorce before seeking maintenance and that children’s rights to welfare, education, and support are enforceable and independent of the marital status of their parents. The Court emphasized that the pursuit of substantial justice must override procedural technicalities, particularly where vulnerable dependants are involved.

From a jurisprudential standpoint, this decision marks a welcome shift towards a more humane and purposive interpretation of family law. It reflects the court’s recognition of the constitutional imperative to protect the family and children’s rights under Sections 17(3)(f) and 18 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), as well as Nigeria’s obligations under international human rights instruments such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child.

However, while the reasoning is commendable, the decision also exposes a lingering gap in Nigeria’s matrimonial jurisprudence. The Matrimonial Causes Act remains largely procedural and formalistic, offering little flexibility for spouses seeking reliefs outside dissolution proceedings. By allowing such claims under ordinary civil procedure, the Supreme Court may have expanded the frontiers of family law jurisdiction but it also blurs the procedural line between matrimonial and civil claims. Without legislative reform, trial courts may face uncertainty about the proper forum, procedural rules, and applicable evidentiary thresholds for similar suits.

In essence, Ugbah v. Ugbah is a bold reaffirmation that the courts exist to do justice not to enthrone technical rigidity. It ensures that the law serves humanity, not the other way around. Yet, it also calls for a measured legislative response: a review of the Matrimonial Causes Act to create clearer procedural pathways for spousal maintenance and child welfare claims during subsisting marriages.

The Supreme Court has, once again, reminded us that justice, especially in family matters must not be sacrificed on the altar of form.

— By B. C OBILOR ESQ.
Legal Practitioner & Human Rights Advocate

27/08/2026

Send us dm

27/08/2026

EXEMPTION OR EXCLUSION CLAUSES: WHEN A NOTICE SAYS “WE ARE NOT LIABLE”

Have you ever parked your car somewhere and seen a notice saying:

“CAR PARKED AT OWNER’S RISK.”

Or entered a hotel room and found a notice stating:

“Management shall not be responsible for loss of valuables.”

These are examples of Exemption or Exclusion Clauses.

An exemption clause is a term in a contract, notice or agreement by which one party seeks to exclude or limit liability for certain loss, damage or consequences that may arise from the transaction.

In simple terms, it is a legal attempt to say:

“If this particular thing happens, I will not be responsible—or my liability will be limited.”

But here is the important point: A notice does not automatically become law merely because it is written in bold letters.

For an exclusion clause to be effective, the court may consider whether the clause was properly brought to the attention of the other party, whether it was incorporated into the contract, and whether its wording actually covers the particular liability in question.

For instance, a hotel may display:

> “Guests are advised to keep their valuables in the hotel safe. Management accepts no responsibility for loss.”

If a guest subsequently loses property, the hotel cannot simply point to the notice and assume that liability has automatically disappeared. The circumstances surrounding the loss, the wording of the clause, the contract between the parties and applicable law may all become relevant.

The same principle applies to the familiar “CAR PARKED AT OWNER’S RISK” notice. The presence of the notice does not necessarily give the car park operator an unlimited licence to escape every form of responsibility. The effectiveness of the clause depends on the circumstances and the applicable law.

The law recognises freedom of contract, but that freedom is not without limits.

Therefore, the next time you see:

“WE ACCEPT NO LIABILITY.”

Do not immediately assume that the law agrees.

Sometimes, the real legal question is not whether the notice exists, but whether the law permits the person relying on it to escape liability.

Legal education only. It does not constitute legal advice.

B. C Obilor Esq.
B C Obilor and Associates



Legal Help Centre

27/08/2026

& GIRLFRIEND: WHEN LOVE ENDS, MUST THE GIFTS BE RETURNED?

A relationship ends. The boyfriend is angry and says:

“I bought you an iPhone, human hair, jewellery and clothes while we were together. Since you have ended the relationship, give everything back.”

Can he legally recover those items?

The answer is not simply because the relationship has ended.

Under the law of contract, love and affection is not sufficient consideration. In Faloughi v. Faloughi (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt. 384) 434, the Court of Appeal held that love and affection cannot be quantified in monetary terms and has no value in the eyes of the law as consideration.

But this principle must not be misunderstood.

The fact that love and affection is not consideration does not mean that every gift given during a relationship can be recovered when the relationship ends.

A gift is different from a contractual exchange.

If a boyfriend voluntarily buys his girlfriend an iPhone, human hair, jewellery or other property and gives it to her as an outright gift, the absence of consideration does not, by itself, make the gift recoverable. A completed gift inter vivos is a voluntary transfer made with the intention that the property should belong to the recipient. The Supreme Court's decision in Anyaegbunam v. Osaka (2000) 5 NWLR (Pt. 657) 386 is instructive on the nature of such gifts. ([Fabian Ajogwu][2])

So, “I gave it to her because I loved her” does not automatically mean “she must return it because she no longer loves me.”

However, the position may be different where the property was not an outright gift, but was given on a condition for example, expressly in contemplation of marriage, or as something to be returned upon the occurrence or failure of a specified event.

The critical question therefore is not merely:

“Did she give consideration?”

It is:

What was the legal nature of the transfer?”

Was it an outright gift?

Was it a loan?

Was it given conditionally?

Or was it given in contemplation of marriage?

The end of a relationship may break the heart, but it does not automatically undo a completed gift.

Legal education only. This does not constitute legal advice.

21/08/2026

BUSINESS OWNERS: YOU NEED A LAWYER BEFORE YOU NEED A LAWSUIT.

Most business owners make the same costly mistake: they call a lawyer only after the damage has already been done.

They call when they have been sued.

When a business partner has betrayed them.

When a customer refuses to pay.

When an employee has committed fraud.

When they receive a demand letter.

When a contract has gone terribly wrong.

When money has already been lost—and suddenly, they want a lawyer to “fix everything.”

But by then, your lawyer may be fighting an uphill battle.

Prevention is almost always better—and cheaper—than litigation.

A good business lawyer is not someone you should meet only when there is a crisis. Your lawyer should be part of your business strategy from the beginning.

Before you sign that partnership agreement, have it reviewed.

Before you enter a major transaction, understand your rights and obligations.

Before you hire key employees, make sure your employment arrangements protect the business.

Before you lend money to another company, document the transaction properly.

Before you terminate an employee, understand the legal consequences.

Before you rely on a handshake and “trust,” put the agreement in writing.

Before you invest your hard-earned money, conduct proper due diligence.

And before a dispute becomes a lawsuit, get legal advice.

The smartest business owners don't wait for a legal problem to become an expensive problem. They identify the risk early and deal with it while they still have options.

Think of your lawyer as more than a courtroom representative.

Your lawyer can help you prevent disputes, structure transactions, negotiate contracts, protect your interests, manage risk, safeguard your assets, and make informed decisions.

Because the real value of a lawyer is not only in winning a lawsuit.

Sometimes, the greatest legal victory is preventing the lawsuit from ever happening.

Don't wait until you hear:

> “You have been served.”

By then, the legal bill may be the least of your problems.

Build your business with legal protection—not legal panic.

BUSINESS OWNERS: GET LEGAL ADVICE BEFORE YOU NEED LEGAL DEFENCE.