"In the case of Yakassai v. Incar Motors (Nig.) Ltd 1975 N.S.C.C. 284 which facts are virtually on all fours with the instant case, (in that the vehicle in controversy was seized by the owner on default of instalmental payments after an outright sale), the Supreme Court after a thorough consideration of the facts of the case, the addresses of learned counsel, and the principles enunciated in the case of Kofi v. Mensah 1 W.A.C.A. 76 pronounced as follows:-

"We are in no doubt whatsoever that the facts of this case show clearly that the vehicle was sold outright by the defendants to the plaintiff ever before the defendants effected the seizure which is the subject matter of this action.

That being so, we think that the respondents in the present case acted wrongly when they seized the vehicle as they did.

The difference between an outright sale and a Hire Purchase Agreement is that in the former, the property in the vehicle passes to the purchaser as soon as the contract is entered into, whereas in Hire Purchase Agreement, the property in the vehicle still remain vested in the owner until payment is fully made.

In other words, under a Hire Purchase Agreement it is always open to the owner of a vehicle to take possession of it on failure of the hirer to pay the installments.

In an outright sale, the seller's remedy lies in an action to recover the balance of payment owed by the purchaser."

Per MUKHTAR, J.S.C in Alhaji Jimoh Ajagbe Vs Layiwola Idowu (2012) 37 W.R.N Page 18 ...