LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Jurisdiction — Territorial Jurisdiction — Venue in Breach of Contract Actions Governed by Place of Performance or Defendant’s Residence
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
By virtue of Order 1A rule 3 of the High Court Rules of Lagos State, an action upon a breach of contract may be commenced and determined in any of three places: where the contract was made, where the contract ought to have been performed, or where the defendant resides. A plaintiff suing for breach of contract is entitled to take advantage of any of the alternatives to choose the venue convenient for him.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Musdapher, JSC, in Kraus Thomson Organisation Ltd v. University of Calabar (2004) NLC-1272000(SC) at pp. 12–13; Paras E–A.
"Now by virtue of Order 1A rule 3 of the High Court Rules of Lagos State 1972 or as amended by virtue of Order 2 rule 3 of the 1994 Rules, an action upon a breach of contract may be commenced and determined in anyone of the following three places; namely: (a) where the contract was made: or (b) where the contract ought to have been performed; or (c) where the defendant resides. Thus, a plaintiff suing for a breach of contract is entitled to take advantage of any of the alternatives and rely on it to choose the venue convenient for him."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A plaintiff in a breach of contract action may choose venue from three alternatives: place of making, place of performance, or defendant’s residence. The plaintiff is entitled to choose the most convenient venue. The principle applies to contract actions under High Court Rules. The rule gives the plaintiff procedural advantage in venue selection. The defendant cannot object if any of the three conditions is satisfied. The court must uphold the plaintiff’s choice of valid venue.