[1960]DLHC79 • March 8, 1960 • High Court
ARTHUR vs. SIKA
The plaintiff expended money on constructing the top floor of a building for the benefit of the defendant, who was his wife under customary law at the time. The plaintiff claimed repayment of the money following the dissolution of their customary marriage. The defendant contended that their relationship was concubinage, not marriage, thus disputing the claim.
read moreJUDGMENT OF ADUMUA-BOSSMAN J. (His lordship referred to the pleadings and continued): In form the writ is obviously an unsatisfactory one for it is not at all clear what is the exact cause of action on which the claim is founded. In the first part it is set out that the total amount expended in putting up the building was due “ upon consideration which has failed owing to the defendant’s refusal for the plaintiff to complete the said building;” but in the latter part it is set out that the amount had been “ found due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff at an arbitration “. At all events it is obvious that the claim is not one which should have been made under a specially endorsed writ. Be that as it may, the question arises what is the nature of the claim. In this connection it was said by Kingdon, C.J. (Nigeria) in Kwow v. Eku II (2 W.A.C.A. 180) that: “in cases such as this the real issue between the parties must be the test, and not merely the wor...