Skip to content

Illegality

Doctrine in Contract. 7 cases, with the principle each one established. By lanbuk.com.

  • Abdallah v Barlatt, 1920-36 ALR S.L. 265

    Sierra Leone — African Law Reports · 1920-36

    Principle established: An agreement whereby a solicitor takes a percentage of litigation proceeds is champertous and illegal, and an appellate court will take notice of such illegality even if not pleaded below.

  • Habib v Att.-Gen, 1957-60 ALR S.L. 24

    Sierra Leone — African Law Reports · 1957-60

    Principle established: A court will not assist a claimant whose cause of action arises from an agreement designed to execute a transaction prohibited by mineral regulatory statutes.

  • Nabieu Amadu v Aiah Sidiki (CIV APP 3 of 1967) [1967] SLCA 1236 (5 May 1967)

    Sierra Leone — Court of Appeal · 1967

    Principle established: Where a cause of action arises ex turpi causa or transgresses positive law, the court will refuse assistance to the plaintiff even if illegality was not specifically pleaded by the defendant.

  • Nabieu Amadu v Aiah Sidiki, 1967-68 ALR S.L. 136

    Sierra Leone — African Law Reports · 1967-68

    Principle established: A court will refuse to assist a plaintiff whose claim arises ex turpi causa or in breach of positive law, taking notice of illegality even if unpleaded.

  • Nabieu Amadu v Aiah Sidiki, 1972-73 ALR S.L. 421

    Sierra Leone — African Law Reports · 1972-73

    Principle established: Courts will not enforce a bailment transaction where the possession of the subject-matter goods is illegal under the law.

  • Phillips v Phillips & Ors (CIVIL CASE 440 of 1965) [1967] SLSC 1244 (3 June 1967)

    Sierra Leone — Supreme Court · 1967

    Principle established: To obtain equitable relief in respect of an illegal transaction, a plaintiff must prove both the illegality and that his consent was procured under duress or undue influence.

  • Silonda v Nkomo (6 of 2022) [2022] ZWSC 6 (25 January 2022)

    Zimbabwe · 2022

    Principle established: A contract for the sale of land that fails to comply with mandatory statutory planning requirements is null and void, though a party may be entitled to compensation for improvements.