PRINCIPLE STATEMENT

If the bailee commits an act inconsistent with the bailment which terminates the bailment or entitles the bailor to do so, the bailor has the necessary right to possession to sue the bailee or any transferee from him.

RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)

Per Ayoola, JSC, in Labode v. Otubu & Anor (2001) NLC-1721995(SC) at pp. 36–37; Paras E–A.
"If the bailee commits an act inconsistent with the bailment which terminates the bailment or entitles the bailor to do so, the bailor has the necessary right to possession to sue the bailee or any transferee from him."
View Judgment

EXPLANATION / SCOPE

An unauthorised pledge by a bailee is an act inconsistent with the bailment. This act terminates the bailment or gives the bailor the right to terminate it. Once terminated, the bailor has immediate right to possession. The bailor can sue both the bailee and any transferee (pawnee) for recovery of the goods. The transferee cannot justify detention by claiming they took from the bailee in good faith. The bailee’s lack of authority is fatal to the transferee’s defence. The principle protects the bailor’s ownership. The transferee must seek recourse against the bailee. The true owner’s right to possession is paramount.

CASES APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE