April 30, 2026

E-COMMERCE IN NIGERIA: THE ULTIMATE THING YOU NEED TO KNOW WHEN ONLINE VENDORS SCAMS CONSUMERS

by Ekosolicitors

Introduction to E-commerce in Nigeria

The rapid growth of electronic commerce (e-commerce) in Nigeria has transformed the way goods and services are bought and sold. Through online platforms such as Jumia, Temu,etc and social media channels like Instagram, WhatsApp,etc and other online marketplaces, consumers now engage in transactions with unprecedented convenience. However, this digital revolution has also exposed consumers to significant risks, particularly fraud, misrepresentation, and non-delivery of goods.

The increasing prevalence of online scams raises a fundamental legal question: who bears liability when an online vendor defrauds a consumer in Nigeria? This essay critically explores the darker side of e-commerce in Nigeria by focusing on liability, legal frameworks, and the challenges of enforcement.

THE LEGAL NATURE OF E-COMMERCE IN NIGERIA

At its core, an e-commerce transaction is governed by the principles of contract law. A valid contract requires offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention to create legal relations. These principles apply equally to online transactions.

In Bilante International Ltd v NDIC, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that these essential elements must be present for a binding contract to exist. Accordingly, when a consumer places an order online and makes payment, a legally enforceable contract is formed between the buyer and the seller.

Failure by the seller to deliver the goods or to deliver goods that conform to the contract constitutes a breach of contract, giving rise to civil liability.

E-COMMERCE IN NIGERIA: PRIMARY LIABILITY OF THE ONLINE VENDOR

The online vendor is, in most cases, the primary party liable for e-commerce fraud.

Where a vendor:

Receives payment and fails to deliver goods, or
Delivers goods that are materially different from what was advertised,

such conduct amounts to breach of contract and may also constitute fraudulent misrepresentation.

In Nigerian Advertising Service Ltd v UBA Plc, the court held that a party who makes false representations that induce another into a contract may be held liable for damages. This principle applies directly to online vendors who deceive consumers through false product descriptions or fabricated reviews.

Furthermore, under the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2018, it is unlawful for businesses to engage in misleading or deceptive conduct. The Act provides consumers with rights to:

Refunds
Replacement of goods
Compensation

Thus, both under contract law and statutory provisions, the vendor bears primary responsibility

A more complex issue arises with respect to the liability of online platforms that host vendors. Generally, platforms are treated as intermediaries rather than principal parties to the contract. Consequently, liability typically rests with the vendor rather than the platform.

However, this position is not absolute. In Olanrewaju v Afribank Plc, the court emphasised that liability may arise where a party owes and breaches a duty of care. By analogy, an online platform may incur liability where it:

Fails to vet vendors adequately
Continues to host known fraudulent sellers
Provides guarantees or assurances that induce consumer reliance

The current legal approach inadequately addresses the role of platforms in facilitating transactions. Given their control over access, visibility, and payment systems, platforms arguably occupy a position that justifies greater regulatory responsibility.

LIABILITY OF PAYMENT SERVICE PROVIDERS

Payment service providers, including banks and fintech companies, generally have limited liability in cases of online fraud.

In Union Bank of Nigeria v Ajabule, the court held that a bank’s primary duty is to honour its customer’s mandate. Where a consumer voluntarily authorises payment to a vendor, the bank is typically not liable unless there is evidence of:

Negligence
System failure
Unauthorized transaction

Additionally, the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015 criminalises electronic fraud but does not impose civil liability on payment intermediaries where transactions are properly authorised.

CONSUMER RESPONSIBILITY AND THE DOCTRINE OF CAVEAT EMPTOR

An often-overlooked dimension of e-commerce liability is the role of the consumer. Nigerian law recognises the doctrine of caveat emptor (buyer beware), which places a duty on buyers to exercise reasonable care.

In Oshodi v Eyifunmi, the court emphasised that a claimant bears the burden of proving their case. In the context of e-commerce, this includes demonstrating:

The existence of a contract
Payment made
Failure of the vendor to perform

While consumer protection laws mitigate the harshness of caveat emptor, the principle still underscores the need for vigilance in online transactions.

E-COMMERCE IN NIGERIA: ADMISSIBILITY OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE

A critical issue in pursuing legal remedies is the admissibility of electronic evidence such as screenshots, chat logs, and transaction records.

Under the Evidence Act 2011, particularly Section 84, electronic evidence is admissible only if it is accompanied by a certificate of authenticity. This requirement was strictly enforced in Kubor v Dickson, where the Supreme Court held that failure to comply with statutory conditions renders electronic evidence inadmissible.

The implication of this provision creates a significant barrier for victims of online scams, many of whom rely solely on digital evidence.

E-COMMERCE IN NIGERIA: DIFFICULTY IN ENFORCING LIABILITY

Despite the existence of legal frameworks, several challenges undermine effective enforcement which includes:

1. Anonymity of Vendors

Fraudsters often operate using fake identities, making them difficult to trace and prosecute.

2. Absence of Comprehensive E-Commerce Regulation

Nigeria lacks a unified legal framework specifically addressing e-commerce liability. Although agencies like the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission exist, enforcement remains inconsistent.

3. Procedural Barriers in E-commerce in Nigeria

Strict evidentiary requirements may exclude relevant evidence on technical grounds.

The Nigerian legal system’s approach to e-commerce liability is largely reactive and inadequate. It relies heavily on traditional doctrines of contract and tort, which were not designed for the complexities of digital commerce.

Three major shortcomings are evident:

Over-reliance on vendor liability: This ignores the structural role of platforms in enabling transactions.
Insufficient platform accountability: Platforms benefit economically without corresponding legal responsibility.
Limited consumer protection: Enforcement gaps leave consumers vulnerable despite statutory rights.

There is a compelling case for reform, including:

Imposing shared liability on platforms
Simplifying evidentiary requirements
Establishing a dedicated e-commerce regulatory framework

CONCLUSION

The dark side of e-commerce in Nigeria reveals a troubling disconnect between legal theory and practical reality. While the law clearly places primary liability on online vendors, enforcement challenges often render these protections ineffective.

Other parties such as platforms and payment providers operate within a legal grey area, benefiting from transactions while largely avoiding liability. Meanwhile, consumers are left to navigate a system that offers rights in principle but limited remedies in practice. To address these challenges, Nigeria must move beyond traditional legal doctrines and adopt a more robust, technology-sensitive approach to e-commerce regulation.

Contributors