attorney rivers state v. attorney- general, akwa ibom state in the ...

It does not matter in the instant case the defendants have suddenly released that the terms
of the agreement they had entered into with the plaintiff are not favourable to them. Thus,
Arjay v. Airline Management Support Ltd (2003) FWLR(Pt.156)943 at 990, this court held
as follows:
"It is elementary law that where parties have entered into a contract or an agreement,
they are bound by the provision of the contract or agreement.
This is because a party cannot ordinarily resile from a contract or agreement just
because he later found that the conditions the contract or of the agreement are not
favourable to him, This is the whole essence of the doctrine of sanctity of the
contract or agreement.”
The Defendants in the instant case have, by amassing further evidence, evinced an
intention to, after setting aside the terms of agreement, they voluntarily entered into,
substantive matter to a logical determination on the merits. This smart move is not
sanctioned by the law, Thus in the owners of the M.V, Lupex v . Nigerian Overseas
Chatering & Shipping Ltd.(2003)FWLR (Pt.170)14-28 at 1445, this Court held thus:
"The law is also settled that the mere fact that a dispute is of a nature eminently suitable for
trial court is not a sufficient ground for refusing to give effect to what the parties have, by
contract, expressly agreed to. See an Application by the Phoenix Timber Company
Ltd.(Appeal of V/O Sovfracht (1958)1 Lloyd’s Rep. 305 at 308."
Akin to this the law of contract which I shall explore to see whether both parties had
entered into a binding contractual relation by virtue of the terms or the agreement in
question. In the case of a simple contract, the parties, in order to be bound by the
agreement, must be ad idem on its terms at the tune of execution; In which case they
cannot be allowed to escape from its terms thereafter. In Sparkling Breweries Ltd V. Union
Bank of Nigeria Ltd (2001) FWLR(Pt.71 ) 1682 at 1702 this court described how parties to
a contract are said to be ad idem thus:
"Whether or not there is a semblance of a legally binding agreement between the
parties, that is, a situation where the parties to the contract confer rights and impose
liabilities on themselves will largely depend on whether there exists a mutual assent
between them………The mutual assent must be outwardly manifested. The test of
the existence of such mutuality is objective. See Norwich Union Fire Insurance
Society v. Price (1943)A.C.455,p.463, When there is mutual consent the parties are
said to be ad idem."