Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
November 12, 2018 3:37 pm
"Fraudulent act or conduct was defined in the case of NIMASA v. STEPHEN ODEY (2013) LPELR-21402 (CA) in the following way: "It is a conduct involving bad faith, dishonesty, a lack of integrity, or moral turpitude; also termed dishonest act; fraudulent act." It could also be an assertion that does not conform with facts, the apex Court in yet another case defined fraud thus: "Turning now to the meaning of "fraud" in connection with representation, it is firmly settled that whenever a man makes a false statement which he does not actually and honestly believe to be true, that statement is, for purposes of civil liability, as fraudulent as if he had stated that which he did not know to be true, or he knew or believed to be false." Fraud is said to be proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made by the person representing the facts in the following circumstances: i. Knowing, or ii. Without belief in its truth; iii. Recklessly, carelessly whether it be true or false. This one is just an instance of the second above. See AFEGBAI v. A.G., EDO STATE (2001) 14 NWLR (Pt. 733) 425."
Per NIMPAR, J.C.A. IN MBANUGO v. STATE CITATION: (2017) LPELR-43581(CA)
