Compagnie Noga D'importation Et D'exportation SA v Abacha & Ors [2003] EWCA Civ 1100 (23 July 2003)

Compagnie Noga D'importation Et D'exportation SA v Abacha & Ors [2003] EWCA Civ 1100 (23 July 2003)

The Court of Appeal held that the tripartite agreement was not a binding contract because the settlement sum was not specified and the parol evidence did not establish that the parties intended $100 million to be inserted unconditionally. The agreement was not final and binding, as the sum was subject to conditions relating to FGN's conduct. The 16 August agreement was supported by consideration because it rescinded and replaced the earlier agreement, with mutual release of executory promises.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 1100
Parties
Claimant: Compagnie Noga d'Importation et d'Exportation SA; Defendants: Mrs Maryam Abacha & Mr Mohammed Sani Abacha as the personal representatives of General Sani Abacha deceased; Intervener/interested Party: Federal Government of Nigeria
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen's Bench Division (commercial Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Certainty in Contract Formation, Consideration, Parol Evidence Rule, Rescission and Replacement of Contracts
Contract Law Commercial Law Certainty in Contract Formation Consideration Parol Evidence Rule Rescission and Replacement of Contracts

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Compagnie Noga d'Importation et d'Exportation SA

Claimant

Mrs Maryam Abacha & Mr Mohammed Sani Abacha as the personal representatives of General Sani Abacha deceased

Defendants

Federal Government of Nigeria

Intervener/interested Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen's Bench Division (commercial Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tripartite agreement of 11 August 1999 was a binding contract
  2. 2 Whether parol evidence could be used to insert a settlement sum into the agreement
  3. 3 Whether there was consideration for the 16 August 1999 agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the tripartite agreement was not a binding contract because the settlement sum was not specified and the parol evidence did not establish that the parties intended $100 million to be inserted unconditionally. The agreement was not final and binding, as the sum was subject to conditions relating to FGN's conduct. The 16 August agreement was supported by consideration because it rescinded and replaced the earlier agreement, with mutual release of executory promises.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal by Noga is dismissed.
  • The appeal by the SJ Berwin Defendants on consideration is dismissed.