Eze v Conway & Anor

The relationship between Mr Obahor and Prince Eze was not fiduciary in nature; Mr Obahor acted as a salesman and facilitator, not as a trusted adviser or agent with authority to affect Prince Eze’s legal position. Therefore, the law of bribes and secret commissions was not engaged, and the contract was enforceable.

Parties: Appellant: Prince Arthur Ikpechukwu Eze; Respondent: Richard Conway; Respondent: Deborah Conway
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 06 February 2019
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome: appeal dismissed
Legal Topics: Bribes, Secret Commissions, Fiduciary Duties, Rescission, Breach of Contract

Contract Law Equity Agency Law Bribes Secret Commissions Fiduciary Duties Rescission Breach of Contract

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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6

Parties

Prince Arthur Ikpechukwu Eze

Appellant

Richard Conway

Respondent

Deborah Conway

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

1 Whether the law relating to bribes and secret commissions is engaged in the circumstances of the case
2 Nature of the relationship required between the recipient of a secret payment and a contracting party to render a contract void or unenforceable
3 Whether the promise of payment to Mr Obahor constituted a bribe or secret commission

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

The appeal is dismissed; the High Court judgment in favour of the Conways is upheld.
No need to consider further issues as the law of bribery was not engaged.