^{page 32 note 2} The first enactment on this subject was the Ordinance of 1915.

^{page 32 note 3} Illiterates Protection Act (Lagos), cap. 83; Illiterates Protection Law (E.R.), cap. 64; Illiterates Protection Law (N.R.), cap. 51; Illiterates Protection Law (W.R.), cap. 47, which also applies to the Mid-Western Region.

^{page 33 note 1} E.R. cap. 64, s. 3; N.R. cap. 51, s. 2; W.R. and Mid-West cap. 47, s. 3.

^{page 33 note 2} (1959), W.R.N.L.R. 273.

^{page 33 note 3} At p. 277.

^{page 33 note 4} (1959), 4 F.S.C. 220.

^{page 34 note 1} At p. 221; cf. Barclays Bank v. Hassan (1961), All N.L.R. 836.

^{page 34 note 2} At p. 222.

^{page 34 note 3} At p. 223.

^{page 34 note 4} At pp. 223–4.

^{page 34 note 5} (1962), All N.L.R. 242; (1964), N.N.L.R. 54.

^{page 34 note 6} (1961), N.R.N.L.R. I decided by Bate, J.

^{page 35 note 1} (1962), 1 All N.L.R. at pp. 244–5.

^{page 35 note 2} At p. 245.

^{page 35 note 3} At p. 246.

^{page 35 note 4} F.S.C. 374/1961 (unreported) decided on 5th March, 1963.

^{page 35 note 5} (1964), N.N.L.R. 96.

^{page 35 note 6} (1959), 4 F.S.C. at pp. 223–4.

^{page 36 note 1} At p. 224.

^{page 36 note 2} At p. 246.

^{page 36 note 3} See Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, 11th Edn., London, 1962, pp. 26–7.

^{page 36 note 4} Heydon's Case (1584), 3 Rep. 7b; ibid., pp. 18–19.

^{page 36 note 5} P.Z. Ltd. v. Gusau and Kantoma (1962), 1 All N.L.R. at p. 246. See also Jiboso v. Obadina, [1962] W.N.L.R. 303 at p. 306.

^{page 37 note 1} P.Z. Ltd v. Gusau and Kantoma at p. 246.

^{page 37 note 2} U.A.C. v. Edems (1958), N.R.N.L.R. 33. Ezera v. Ndukwe (1961), All N L.R. 564 at p. 567; Joboso v. Obadina, [1962] W.N.L.R. 303 at p. 304.

^{page 37 note 3} [1962] W.N.L.R. 303.

^{page 37 note 4} (1961), N.R.N.L.R. 1.

^{page 38 note 1} At p. 5.

^{page 38 note 2} Section 4 provides: “If the writer of any such letter or document shall fail to write thereon his name and address, or if having done so, any statement which under the last preceding section is in consequence implied shall be found to be untrue, the writer shall be liable to a fine of fifty pounds or in default of payment to imprisonment for six months.”

^{page 38 note 3} Suit No. B/23/65 (unreported) decided by Begho, J. on 16th August, 1966.

^{page 39 note 1} Ezera v. Ndukwe (1961), All N.L.R. 564 at p. 568.

^{page 39 note 2} (1958), N.R.N.L.R. 33.

^{page 40 note 1} (1962), 1 All N.L.R. 242.

^{page 40 note 2} At p. 264.

^{page 40 note 3} Lagos s. 5; W.R. s. 5; N.R. s. 4; E.R. s. 5.

^{page 40 note 4} Akugbe District Council v. Osakue & Tom, Suit No. B/23/65 (unreported) decided by Begho, J., on 16th August, 1966.

^{page 40 note 5} N.R. s. 3; W.R. s. 4; E.R. s. 4. See also Jiboso v. Obadina, [1962] W.N.L.R. at p. 306.

^{page 40 note 6} U.A.C. v. Edems, 1958, N.R.L.R. 33 at p. 34; S.C.O.A v. Okon (1959), 4 F.S.C. 220 at p. 223.

^{page 41 note 1} S.C.O.A v. Okon, ibid., U.A.C. v. Edems at p. 34.

^{page 41 note 2} P.Z. v. Gusau and Kantoma, 1961, N.R.N.L.R. 1 at pp. 3–4.

^{page 41 note 3} (1961), 1 All N.L.R. 564 at p. 568.

^{page 41 note 4} At pp. 268–9.

^{page 41 note 5} 1955–56, W.R.N.L.R. 121.

^{page 41 note 6} The court's opinion was based on the presumption that the defendant was an illiterate, pp. 123, 125.

^{page 42 note 1} Okan v. Emayabor and Enayoma (1959), W.R.N L.R. 83.

^{page 42 note 2} (1959), W.R.N.L.R. 273.

^{page 42 note 3} Barclays Bank D.C.O. v. Hassan (1961), All N.L.R. 836 at p. 840; Jiboso v. Obadina (1962), W.N.L.R. 303 at pp. 304–5.

^{page 42 note 4} Barclays Bank D.C.O. v. Hassan (1961), All N.L.R. 836 at p. 840.

^{page 42 note 5} [1962] W.N.L.R. 303 at p. 307.

^{page 42 note 6} (1961), All N.L.R. 404.

^{page 42 note 7} At p. 405. Charles, J., explained this decision on the basis that Madarikan, J., thought that Smith, J., used the word “unenforceable” as synonymous with “void” in U.A.C. v. Edems, as Madarikan, J., considered the decision in Okan v. Emayabor as being against the stream of authority as represented by U.A.C. v. Edems and Ntiashagwo's case. Charles, J., therefore considered the Eke v. Odolofin case as wrongly decided—Jiboso v. Obadina at pp. 305, 307.

^{page 42 note 8} (1961), All N.L.R. 564.

^{page 43 note 1} At pp. 567–8.

^{page 43 note 2} (1959). 4 F.S.C. 220.

^{page 43 note 3} At p. 223.

^{page 43 note 4} Ibid., cf. Charles, J., in Jiboso v. Obadina, [1962] W.N.L.R. 303 at p. 305.

^{page 44 note 1} Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes 11th Edn., London, 1962 p. 204; Solanke v. Abed (1962), All N.L.R. 230, 233–4.

^{page 44 note 2} Maxwell, ibid., pp. 363–4.

^{page 44 note 3} In Thoroughgood's Case (1852), 2 Co. Rep. 9a or 76 E.R. 408—an illiterate person executed a deed after it had been incorrectly read over to him. It was held that he was not bound by it.

^{page 44 note 4} If the illiterate disowns the documents he cannot turn round to seek an interest under it. There is no reported Nigerian case in which the plea of non est factum has been raised in connection with illiteracy.

^{page 44 note 5} Suit No. F.S.C. 374/1961 (unreported) decided on March 5, 1963.

^{page 45 note 1} Suit No. B/1/65 (unreported) decided by Begho, J., on August 3, 1966.

^{page 46 note 1} Section II of the Land and Native Rights Act (Chapter 105 of 1948 Edition); Land Tenure (Amendment) Law (N.R.), s. 3; McDowell, Nigerian Law Journal, Vol. 1, No. 2, 202, 222–5.

^{page 46 note 2} Parker v. S.E. Railway (1877), 2 C.P. 416 at pp. 422–3 approved by the House of Lords in Richardson v. Rowntree, [1894] A.C. 217.

^{page 46 note 3} See Richardson v. Rowntree, [1894] A.C. 217 where Lord Ashbourne held that reasonable notice of exemption clauses in small print contained in a ticket was not given to the plaintiff partly on the ground that he belonged to a class many of whom have little education and some of them none. Treitel, Law of Contract, 1962, pp. 134–5.

^{page 46 note 4} (1907), 1 N.L.R. 70.

^{page 47 note 1} At p. 73.

^{page 47 note 2} E.g. under the E.R. Recovery of Premises Law, cap. 113, s. 7.

^{page 47 note 3} Ibid.

^{page 48 note 1} (1881), 1 N.L.R. 1.

^{page 48 note 2} At p. 4.

^{page 48 note 3} Montgomery v. Thompson, [1891] A.C. 217.

^{page 49 note 1} See Elias, The Nigerian Legal System, p. 269.

^{page 49 note 2} Trade Marks Act (cap. 199), sections 13 and 25; Fuji Trading Co. Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks (1960), L.L.R. 50.

^{page 49 note 3} (1917), 3 N.L.R. 18.

^{page 49 note 4} At p. 19.

^{page 49 note 5} At pp. 21–22.

^{page 49 note 6} John Walkden v. Oshodi and Radcliffe Ltd. (1923), 4 N.L.R. 105; G. B. Ollivant v. Christian (1925), 6 N.L.R. 102; George v. Walkden (1926), 7 N.L.R. 64; Distilleerderij En Alcholofabriek & Co. v. Netherlands Distilleries (1928), 8 N.L.R. 48.

^{page 49 note 7} (1931), 16 N.L.R. 1 at p. 2.

^{page 50 note 1} Cottschalk & Co. Ltd. v. Spruce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1956), F.S.C. 1.

^{page 50 note 2} (1936), 13 N.L.R. 34.

^{page 50 note 3} At p. 36.

^{page 50 note 4} For a discussion of whether the interpretation of provocation is to be found in the common law or s. 283 of the Criminal Code, see Okonkwo and Naish, Criminal Law in Nigeria, pp. 236–9.

^{page 51 note 1} (1944), 17 N.L.R. 99.

^{page 51 note 2} Ibid., at p. 101; followed in R. v. Igiri (1948), 12 W.A.C.A. 377. cf. R. v. Okoro (1947), 16 N.L.R. 63.

^{page 51 note 3} (1948), 12 W.A.C.A. 377.

^{page 51 note 4} Ibid., p. 377–8.

^{page 51 note 5} (1960), 5 F.S.C. 93.

^{page 52 note 1} This statute applies only to the Eastern and Northern Regions. Section 4 has been re-enacted in local legislation in Lagos—Law Reform (Contracts) Act 1961 s. 5 and Western and Mid-Western Regions—Contracts Law, 1958, ss. 2, 3 and 5. See also the Money-Lenders Act, cap. 124, s. 12(1)—“No contract by a borrower or his agent for the repayment or securing of money lent to the borrower or to any agent on his behalf by a money lender or for the payment by the borrower or by any agent on his behalf of interest on money so lent and no security given by the borrower or by any such agent as aforesaid in respect of any such contract shall be enforceable, unless a memorandum in writing of the contract be made and signed by the parties to the contract or their respective agents…”

^{page 52 note 2} The Statute of Frauds does not apply to customary law transactions—Ogunbambi v. Abowab (1951), 13 W.A.C.A. 222, 225; Amoa v. Adebona (1962), L.L.R. 125; Orasanmi v. Idowu (1959), 4 F.S.C. 40; Cole v. Folami (1956), 1 F.S.C. 66.

^{page 52 note 3} E.g. High Court Law (E.R.) s. 20; High Court Law (N.R.), s. 28A.

^{page 52 note 4} (1932), 11 N.L.R. 39.

^{page 52 note 5} Ibid., at pp. 39–40. See the effort of counsel to explain the basis of this decision in Malomo v. Olusola (1955), 15 W.A.C.A. 12.

^{page 52 note 6} (1954), 21 N.L.R. 1; (1955), 15 W.A.C.A. 12.

^{page 53 note 1} (1939), 15 N.L.R. 28.

^{page 53 note 2} Ibid., at pp. 29–30.

^{page 53 note 3} It should be remembered that this case was one of consolidated cross-actions. The defendant's claim was dismissed on the ground that there was no memorandum in writing as required by the Statute of Frauds. But the trial judge also later upheld the plaintiff's claim on another ground—at p. 30.

^{page 53 note 4} Section 12(1).

^{page 53 note 5} By making the borrower sign for a sum over and above what he actually received from the lender.

^{page 54 note 1} Land Registration (Lagos) Act, cap. 99; Land Instruments Registration Law (E.R.), cap. 72; Land Instruments Registration Law (W.R.), cap. 56; Land Registration Law (N.R.), cap. 58.

^{page 54 note 2} This provision also appears as s. 8 in the other statutes.

^{page 54 note 3} Section 14.

^{page 54 note 4} Section 15.

^{page 54 note 5} Section 16.