This document provides a summary of the facts and legal holdings for three key cases from different common law jurisdictions. The cases cover principles in the law of contract and property, including the definition of consideration and the application of customary law.
Curie v Misa (1875) LR 1 App Cas 554
This is a foundational House of Lords case in English contract law, primarily known for establishing an authoritative definition of valuable consideration.
Facts
A company named Lizardi & Co., who were in debt to their bankers, Currie, sold several bills of exchange to Misa. Misa was to pay for the bills a few days later. As payment, Misa gave Lizardi & Co. a cheque drawn on another bank. However, before the cheque was presented, Lizardi & Co. fell into financial difficulty and stopped payments. Upon learning of Lizardi & Co.'s problems, Misa instructed his bankers not to honour the cheque. Currie, who had since taken control of Lizardi & Co.’s assets, sued Misa to enforce payment of the cheque. The key question was whether Currie had provided sufficient consideration to Misa for the cheque. Currie argued that the pre-existing debt owed to them by Lizardi & Co. constituted past consideration.
Holding
The House of Lords held that there was no consideration given for the payment of the cheque. It was established that a pre-existing debt alone is not sufficient consideration for a subsequent promise or a negotiable instrument like a cheque. For consideration to be valid, it must be given at the time the promise is made.
The case is most famous for the definition of consideration provided by Lush J in the lower court (the Court of Exchequer Chamber), which was approved by the House of Lords: "A valuable consideration, in the sense of the law, may consist either in some right, interest, profit, or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility, given, suffered, or undertaken by the other" (Curie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 153, 162). This remains the classic definition of consideration in English law.
Edward Santi v Saa Gborie Edward [2010] SLSC 2
This is a modern case from the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone concerning issues of property, chieftaincy and the doctrine of estoppel under domestic law.
Facts
The dispute concerned the ownership of family property and the right to the Paramount Chieftaincy of the Jaiama Bongor Chiefdom. The appellant, Edward Santi, claimed that the respondent, Saa Gborie Edward, was prevented (estopped) from denying the appellant’s family membership of the ruling house. This was because the respondent had, in a previous chieftaincy declaration, supported the candidacy of the appellant's late brother from the same family line. The appellant argued that this past conduct amounted to a representation that his family was part of the ruling house, and the respondent could not now argue otherwise.
Holding
The Supreme Court of Sierra Leone dismissed the appeal. The court held that the principle of estoppel by conduct did not apply on these facts. It reasoned that for estoppel to arise, there must be a clear and unambiguous representation made by one party, which is intended to be acted upon and is in fact acted upon by the other party to their detriment. The court found that the respondent's previous support for the appellant’s brother did not constitute a permanent and legally binding representation about the status of the entire family line. It did not prevent the respondent from later asserting what he believed to be the correct customary position regarding the chieftaincy.
Marfo & Ors v Adusei [1963] 1 GLR 225
This case from the Supreme Court of Ghana addressed the proprietary rights of family members under Ghanaian customary law.
Facts
A man (the deceased) acquired a cocoa farm. His wife and some of his children actively assisted him in cultivating and maintaining the farm. After the man died without a will, his customary successor (a member of his wider family, or 'abusua') claimed the farm was the deceased's self-acquired property, which should therefore pass to him as family property under Twi customary law. The deceased's wife and children disputed this, arguing that their labour and assistance meant that the farm was jointly acquired property, entitling them to a share.
Holding
The Supreme Court of Ghana held in favour of the customary successor. The court ruled that under the prevailing customary law at the time, any assistance provided by a wife and children to the husband/father in the course of his work was considered part of their domestic duties. Such assistance, unless there was a clear agreement to the contrary, did not create a proprietary interest for them in the property acquired by the husband/father. The farm was therefore the sole, self-acquired property of the deceased and, upon his death, it became family property to be inherited by his customary law successor.
References
Curie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 153; (1875-76) LR 1 App Cas 554
Edward Santi v Saa Gborie Edward [2010] SLSC 2 (28 July 2010)
Marfo & Ors v Adusei [1963] 1 GLR 225
