PRINCIPLE STATEMENT

In the law of England certain principles are fundamental; one is that only a person who is a party to a contract can sue on it; our law knows nothing of jus quaesitum tertio arising by way of contract; such a right may be conferred by way of property, as for example, under a trust but it cannot be conferred on a stranger to a contract as a right to enforce the contract in personam.

RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)

Per Karibi-Whyte, JSC, adopting Lord Haldane in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. Selfridge & Co. (1915) AC 847, in Attorney-General of the Federation v. A. I. C. Limited (2000) NLC-1851994(SC) at p. 20; Paras. C–E.
"My Lords, in the law of England certain principles are fundamental. One is that only a person who is a party to a contract can sue on it. Our law knows nothing of jus quaesitum tertio arising by way of contract. Such a right may be conferred by way of property, as for example, under a trust but it cannot be conferred on a stranger to a contract as a right to enforce the contract in personam."
View Judgment

EXPLANATION / SCOPE

This comprehensively states privity doctrine and rejects jus quaesitum tertio. Fundamental principle: Only contract parties can sue on it—strangers cannot even if contract made for their benefit. Jus quaesitum tertio: Latin for “right acquired by third party”—concept that third party beneficiary can enforce contract made for their benefit. English/Nigerian position: Law “knows nothing” of this—third party cannot sue on contract, no third party enforcement rights, and benefit alone doesn’t confer standing. Exception—property rights: Rights conferred by way of property (like trusts) are different—beneficiary can enforce trust, property law permits this, but contract law doesn’t. “In personam” means: personal right to enforce contract—this cannot be given to stranger. This serves: maintaining privity doctrine, protecting contracting parties’ control, and preventing third party interference. Practical effect: Contract made “for benefit of X” doesn’t give X: right to sue on contract, ability to enforce it, or standing in contract disputes. Only parties can: sue on contract, enforce terms, or claim breach. Why: Contract is between parties—they alone: accepted obligations, provided consideration, and intended binding relationship. Third party: provided no consideration, accepted no obligations, and isn’t privy to contract. Trusts distinguished: Trust creates property interest for beneficiary—different from contract in personam. This absolute privity rule prevents: third party contract enforcement, strangers claiming contract rights, and eroding privity doctrine through benefit arguments.

CASES APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE