UNIT 4

VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA

"Volenti non fit injuria" is a Latin phrase meaning "to a willing person, no injury is done." It is a legal principle that states that if someone willingly places themselves in a position where harm might result, knowing the risks involved, they cannot claim damages if harm occurs. This defense is commonly used in tort law to argue that the plaintiff consented to the risk of injury and thus cannot sue for damages. For example, in sports activities, players consent to certain risks inherent in the sport, and this consent can be a defense against liability for injuries. See the case of Ibekendu v. Ike (1993) 4 NWLR (Pt. 286) 386 where the court held that where the plaintiff willingly consented to the risk of harm, the defendant could use "volenti non fit injuria" as a defense and the case of Olowu v. Fasinro (1983) 2 SCNLR 309 where the court found that the plaintiff had voluntarily accepted the risk involved and could not claim damages. The element of volenti non fit injuria includes the following;

1. Knowledge of the risk: this is where the plaintiff must have full knowledge of the risk involved.
2. Voluntary acceptance: this is where the plaintiff must voluntarily accept the risk.

EXCLUSION CLAUSES AND CONSENT

Exclusion clauses are contractual terms that limit or exclude liability for certain breaches or acts. They are commonly found in contracts to manage risks and responsibilities. For an exclusion clause to be effective, it must be incorporated into the contract properly, and the party affected by it must have consented to it. The clause must also be clear and unambiguous. See the case of Lagos State Development and Property Corporation v. Nigerian Land and Sea Foods Ltd (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 243) 475 where the court upheld the exclusion clause as it was clearly stated and consented to by both parties and the case of Niger Insurance Co Ltd v. Abed Brothers Ltd (1976) 7 SC 35 where the Supreme Court of Nigeria emphasized the need for clear consent to exclusion clauses. The requirements for exclusion clauses includes the following;

1. Incorporation: this is where the clause must be part of the contract.
2. Consent: this is where the affected party must have agreed to the clause.
3. Clarity: this is where the terms must be clear and understandable.

MISTAKE

Mistake refers to an erroneous belief about something at the time of contracting, which can render the contract void or voidable. Mistakes can be of fact or law. See the case of Solel Boneh Overseas Ltd v. Ayodele (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 99) 549 where the court held that a contract based on a common mistake regarding a fundamental fact was void and the case of Okafor v. Nigerian Construction & Furniture Co Ltd (1974) 1 All NLR (Pt. 1) 95 where the court found that a unilateral mistake known to the other party could render the contract voidable. The types of mistakes includes the following;

1. Common mistake: this is where both parties share the same erroneous belief.
2. Mutual mistake: this is where both parties misunderstand each other.
3. Unilateral mistake: this is where one party is mistaken, and the other party knows or should have known about the mistake.

NECESSITY

Necessity is a defense that allows someone to break the law to prevent greater harm. It justifies actions that would otherwise be illegal if those actions are necessary to avoid significant and imminent danger. This defense is applicable in situations where there is an immediate threat, and breaking the law is the only way to prevent serious harm. See the case of R v. Abashina (1957) 2 FSC 26 where the court recognized the defense of necessity where the defendant's actions were necessary to prevent greater harm and the case of Ojo v. The State (1972) 11 SC 69 where the court applied the necessity defense where the defendant acted to avoid imminent danger.

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS

Limitation of actions refers to laws that set the maximum time after an event within which legal proceedings may be initiated. After the expiration of this period, the claim is barred, and the plaintiff loses the right to sue. See the Limitation Act, Cap 522, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990 which sets out various limitation periods for different types of actions and see also the case of Egbe v. Adefarasin (No. 2) (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 47) 1 where the Supreme Court held that once the limitation period has expired, the plaintiff's right to action is extinguished and the case of Aminu v. NPFMB (2010) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1177) 181 where the court emphasized the strict application of limitation statutes, barring the claim as it was filed out of time. The key provisions of limitations of actions includes the following;

1. Contract and tort: this is where actions in contract and tort must be brought within six years from the date the cause of action accrued.
2. Land: this is where actions to recover land must be brought within twelve years.
3. Personal injury: this is where claims for personal injury must be brought within three years.

CONCLUSION

These notes provide a comprehensive overview of each topic, relevant legal principles, and illustrative Nigerian cases.