Philip Kayode Olusegun Ojo, trading as P.K. Ojo & Co., had claimed commission from SDV Nigeria Limited for allegedly introducing the company to a property at Awodiora Industrial Estate, Kirikiri, Lagos. Despite facilitating initial negotiations, SDV Nigeria purchased the property directly from the owner, SCOA Nigeria Limited, without paying Ojo any commission.
Ojo filed a lawsuit seeking US$1,250,000 (₦161,250,000) as agency commission, plus interest and damages. The trial court partially granted his claim, but the Court of Appeal overturned the decision. Ojo subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court.
The central issue was whether an estate agent is entitled to commission when no formal agency agreement exists and whether his introduction of the property was the effective cause of the sale.
Arguments:
Ojo’s counsel argued that an agency relationship existed, citing the involvement of SDV’s managerial officer, Mr. Adebola Adejobi, and subsequent inspection of the property by SDV’s Managing Director as evidence of recognition of Ojo’s role. It was further argued that an oral agreement and implied consent from the parties should entitle Ojo to commission.
SDV’s counsel contended there was no agency agreement or consensus capable of creating one, and that negotiations for the property had begun prior to Ojo’s alleged introduction. They emphasized that payment of commission requires a clear agreement, and that no such agreement existed.
Supreme Court Decision:
The Supreme Court held that an estate agent cannot claim commission simply for introducing a buyer or tenant. To be entitled to commission, the agent must demonstrate that their introduction was the main and effective reason the sale or lease occurred. The Court also noted that a person who voluntarily provides a benefit without being asked is not legally entitled to payment for that benefit.
In this case, Ojo failed to prove that his introduction directly led to the purchase by SDV Nigeria. As a result, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondents, denying the claim for commission.
Representation:
- For the Appellant: Chief A.A. Aribisala, SAN, with Martin Abah, Esq., and Mitchel A. Aribisala, Esq.
- For the 1st Respondent: A. Candide-Johnson, SAN, with Emmanuel Ekpenyong, Esq.
- No appearance for the 2nd Respondent
This summary is fully reported at (2026) 3 CLRN in association with ALP NG & Co.
