IMPORTANCE OF REPLYING BUSINESS CORRESPONDENCE
- Introduction
Numerous business letters are received by offices every day. Sometimes they are not replied either deliberately or through negligence. It is either that they are not brought to the notice of management or the appropriate authority refuses to commit certain facts to writing. It is bad business practice not to reply business letters. The failure to respond to business letters and to deny any statements against interest will be treated as an admission of the statements. It is important to note that there must be proof of delivery of the letter which is sought to be relied upon to prove the admission.
- Trade Bank v Chami (2003)
This decision of the Court of Appeal will serve to highlight the danger of not responding to business letters which contain statements against the interest. In the case of Trade Bank v Chami (2003) the bank wrote a letter asking for repayment of a loan but the defendant failed to reply. The Court of Appeal held that his failure to respond to the letter was tantamount to an admission of the contents of the letter. Salami JCA said,
“The defendant in this case did not answer the letter and the failure or neglect to answer such a letter in the circumstance is tantamount to an admission of the assertion in it. The letter was not a social but business letter. While social correspondence may be ignored business letters deserve to be answered. The failure or neglect of the defendant to reply or answer the letter is amounts to an admission because what is asserted in the letter and is not denied is deemed admitted.”
See also, Niger Aluminum Manufacturing v Union Bank (2015), Abubakar
Bagobiri v Unity Bank (2016).
- Zenon Petroleum v Idrisiyya (2006)
In another court of appeal decision in Zenon Petroleum v Idrisiyya
(2006) the claimant alleged that the defendant hired several trailers from them but failed to pay for some of the trailers and even refused to return some the trailers to them. The claimant’s solicitors wrote to the defendant alleging detention of their client’s trailers but the defendant failed to respond to the letter. The Court of Appeal held that the failure to respond to the letters was an admission of the detention of the trailers. The court followed the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Gwani v Ebule (1990) where their lordships said,
“Silence in circumstances in which a reply is obviously expected raises an irrebuttable presumption of admission by conduct or representation. In the instant case, failure of the defendant to reply to letters written by the claimant both personally and through their solicitors demanding payment for the labour he supplied from the defendant constituted an admission of liability by the defendant and lent credence to the claimant’s side of the case.”
See also, Advanced Coating Technology v Express International Plant
Hire (2019), Bellview Airlines v Fadahunsi (2013), Doyin Motors v SPDC
Ltd (2018), Rematon Service v NEM Insurance (2019)
- Marking letters ‘Without prejudice’
Where the response to a business letter is an outright denial of the facts then no problem arises. The way to respond to business letters that contain statements that require an explanation is to clearly mark such letters “without prejudice” as this means that such letters cannot be used in evidence against the maker. Section 196 of the Evidence Act states that,
“A statement in any document marked “without prejudice” made in the course of negotiation for a settlement of a dispute out of court, shall not be given in evidence in any civil proceedings in proof of the matters stated in it.”
Jide Bodede LLM(Lond)
08035130694
