APPELLATE PRACTICE — Wrongful Seizure of Chattel — Remedy of Seller in Credit Sale
Ratio Decidendi
Per Mukhtar, JSC, in Ajagbe v. Idowu (2011) NLC-123-271-2003(SC) at p. 14; Paras A—B:
"That the respondent breached the installmental payment agreement is neither in doubt nor in dispute, but the remedy opened to the appellant would have been to sue for the recovery of the balance of the purchase price, and not to go to the extent of seizing and ultimately selling the vehicle."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that where a buyer breaches an instalment payment agreement, the seller’s remedy is to sue for recovery of the balance of the purchase price, not to seize and sell the vehicle. The principle applies in credit sale agreements. It ensures that the seller’s remedy is properly pursued. The principle reflects that ownership has passed to the buyer. It prevents self-help remedies. The court must require the seller to sue for the balance. The principle provides guidance on the seller’s remedy in credit sales.