Judicial main
archive,category,category-judicial-main,category-55,bridge-core-2.6.0,qode-page-transition-enabled,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,footer_responsive_adv,qode-theme-ver-24.5,qode-theme-bridge,qode_advanced_footer_responsive_1000,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-6.5.0,vc_responsive

“The law has been careful to limit the acts of officers and agents that could be deemed acts of the company to particular transactions. Officers and agents have no general authority for their acts to be turned into acts of the company even if they are carrying out the business of the company in the usual manner.”   The 1st Defendant presented some Local Purchase Orders, VAT Invoices and Waybills to the Plaintiff which showed that his Company, the 2nd Defendant, supplied telecommunication equipment to the 3rd Defendant and was awaiting payment. The Finance Manager of the 3rd Defendant confirmed the order on the letterhead of the 3rd Defendant and signed letters to the effect that his employer owes the 2nd Defendant. Based on this assurance, the Plaintiff accepted a loan request and disbursed money to the 1st Defendant and his Company. The 2nd Defendant refused to pay as scheduled. Further investigations by the Plaintiff revealed that the Finance Manager of the 3rd Defendant connived with the 1st Defendant to defraud the Plaintiff. The issue for determination was whether the 3rd Defendant was vicariously liable for the act of its agent (the Finance Manager). The High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed the...