LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EQUITY AND TRUSTS – Specific Performance – Prerequisite – Existence of Valid Contract
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
It follows that as the respondent is not in possession of any legal or equitable interest in the property, the respondent cannot be the beneficiary of the equitable order of specific performance. This is a classic example of where an agent tried to force the sale of property against the wishes of the vendor, his principal.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ejiwunmi, JSC, in Incar Nigeria Plc & Anor v. Bolex Enterprises (Nig.) (2001) NLC-501996(SC) at p. 33; Paras D–E.
"It follows that as the respondent is not in possession of any legal or equitable interest in the property, the respondent cannot be the beneficiary of the equitable order of specific performance. This is a classic example of where an agent tried to force the sale of property against the wishes of the vendor, his principal."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Specific performance is an equitable remedy requiring a valid contract. Without a legal or equitable interest in property, a claimant cannot obtain specific performance. The remedy compels performance of a contract, not creation of one. Where an agent attempts to force a sale against the principal’s wishes, no valid contract exists. The court will not grant specific performance where there is no binding agreement. The claimant must first establish a valid, enforceable contract with clear terms. Specific performance is not available to create rights—only to enforce existing rights. The principle prevents abuse of equitable remedies. Equity follows the law—no contract, no specific performance.
