ABUJA, September 9, 2025 — What began as a lighthearted scene on a commercial bus en route to Abuja quickly turned into a sobering reminder of emerging legal realities in Nigeria. As passengers paused during a roadside break, a tense conversation caught the attention of other travelers: a man demanding the return of money he had transferred to a woman who had ostensibly agreed to visit him—but never appeared. This growing trend—sending money under the pretext of a visit, only to be ghosted—has now sparked judicial scrutiny and potential civil liability.
Recent court developments in Enugu and Osun States signal that what many dismissed as harmless romantic gimmicks might now attract legal consequences. While “transport fare” cases remain rare in Nigerian legal reports, the principles of contract law, tort, and consumer protection establish clear pathways for restitution when money is collected under false pretenses.
Legal precedent offers striking analogies. In the 2004 Supreme Court case Ezeanah v. Atta, the court held that a clear promise to marry—when relied upon to the claimant’s detriment—could justify a damages award. Earlier, in 1975, Uso v. Iketubosin also resulted in compensation for emotional and financial losses following a broken promise. These cases suggest that if someone sends money in reliance on a visit or promise and is misled, they may have grounds for civil action.
Key to pursuing such claims is credible proof. Under Section 197 of the Evidence Act 2011 (as amended in 2023), courts will not act on mere allegations. A claimant must provide substantial evidence—chat transcripts, bank transfers, witness statements, or documentation of agreements—to establish reliance and deceit. Without such evidence, courts are unlikely to intervene.
The legal lesson is clear: deceitful conduct—such as accepting transport fare without intent to honour an agreement—may be actionable. The payer could be entitled not only to a refund but also to compensation for emotional distress and reputational harm. While these dynamics currently play out in romantic contexts, the same principles apply to business arrangements and informal service agreements where expectations are breached.
Ultimately, the era of casually collecting “TP money” without accountability is drawing to a close. What may once have been dismissed as a harmless ruse is now subject to civil scrutiny. The message is unambiguous: be honest in financial dealings—especially those built on trust. If circumstances change, return the money. Legal liability may soon follow deception.
