Chieke V Olusoga (1997)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

OGWUEGBU, JSC.

This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division which affirmed the decision of Oguntade. J. as he then was in a civil action filed by the plaintiff against the defendants.

The plaintiff who is the appellant herein filed a civil action against the defendants. The claim as stated in paragraph 18 of the Amended Statement of Claim reads:

“18. The plaintiff claims against the defendants jointly and severally: (1) For loss of use at the rate of N10.00 (Ten Naira) per month per room for the period during which the defendants are found to be in unlawful possession until they give up such damages in trespass to the plaintiff’s property situate lying and being at No. 71, Orodu Street, Ajegunle, Apapa.

(2)  Injunction restraining the defendants their servants and agents from further acts of trespass on the aforesaid property.”

The original defendant was one Mr. John Olusoga who died on 13:4:72 after pleadings were ordered, filed and exchanged but before hearing commenced. Following applications made to the trial court, Iyabo Oluyemisi Olusoga and Ibironke Olusoga were substituted in his place by the orders of that court.

The plaintiff who is of Igbo origin was one of the numerous Easterners who fled Lagos to Eastern Nigeria during the national crises and civil war between 1966 and 1970. He had been living in Lagos for over twenty years before the crises. On or about August, 1966, he left Lagos for his home town leaving behind in Lagos his family and four houses at 28, Uzor Street, 58, Abukuru Street, 71, Orodu Street and 80, Orodu Street all in Ajegunle. On his return to Lagos in February, 1970, he found that John Olusoga, the original defendant was in occupation of No. 71, Orodu Street. The latter claimed that he purchased the property in 1966 from the plaintiff’s wife who sold it to him on the authority of the plaintiff. He eventually instituted the proceedings leading to this appeal. The defendants/respondents were substituted as his successors in title.

At the conclusion of hearing, the learned trial Judge in a considered judgment, dismissed the claim of the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s appeal to the Court of Appeal was unsuccessful hence a further appeal to this court.

From the issues joined in the pleadings, it appeared to the learned trial judge that the main issues calling for his decision are:

“(a) Was the building, sold to the defendants’ predecessor John Olusoga and if yes?

(b) Who sold the building and under what circumstances ?

(c) Was the sale of the building authorised by the plaintiff?”

On the above issues, he found as follows:

“From the evidence before me, and upon a reflective and careful consideration of the circumstances surrounding the sale of the building I find as a fact that it was P.W.3 who not only sold the building but carried out the negotiations preparatory to the sale, superintended same and introduced late John Olusoga to tenants in the building. I find as a fact that the purchase price £331,550.00 was paid to P.W.3 and that it was part of her attempt to disguise that fact that she instructed D.W. 1 to issue and sign Exhibit “M”.