LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Venue — Breach of Contract — Three Alternative Bases for Commencing Action
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
For breach of contract, a plaintiff may choose venue based on any of three alternatives: where the contract was made, where it ought to have been performed, or where the defendant resides.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uwaifo, JSC, in Okafor v. Ezenwa (2002) NLC-601996(SC) at pp. 8–9; Paras E–A.
"By the above rule, the venue of an action could be decided upon three alternatives, namely: (a) Where the contract was made. (b) Where the contract ought to have been performed. (c) Where the defendant resides. A plaintiff suing for breach of contract is entitled to take advantage of any of the alternatives and rely on it to choose the venue convenient to him."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
In breach of contract actions, the plaintiff has three venue options. The plaintiff may choose the most convenient forum. The court must have territorial jurisdiction based on one of these grounds. The rule gives the plaintiff flexibility. The defendant may challenge venue if none of the grounds is satisfied. The plaintiff must prove the factual basis for the chosen venue. The principle applies to all contract claims. The court will not strike out an action for improper venue if one of the grounds is met. The rule promotes access to justice. The plaintiff’s choice is not absolute; the court may transfer for convenience.
