Miss Chinye M. Ezeanah Vs Mahmoud I.A. Attah (2004)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

NIKI TOBI, JSC

The appellant and the respondent were in love, or should I say were in some romance. The appellant was the plaintiff in the High Court. The respondent was the defendant. I do not know when the love or romance started. It could be in 1991. It could be earlier. It could be later. Paragraph 3 of the statement of defence seems to say 1991. The appellant said in her evidence that it was in 1993. Let me not attempt to settle that quarrel. I have more serious quarrels to settle. After all, the date of the love or romance is not really important.

The important thing is that things started falling apart. When, I do not know. But I think the affair packed up in 1998. Appellant said so. She said she got married in 1998; not to the respondent. When the relationship was on, appellant went to England in 1994 for further studies. The respondent was in Nigeria. He made the London visits. It would appear the love or romance continued when the appellant was in England.

Although the appellant merely averred in paragraph 2 of her statement of claim that the respondent, a businessman, was “well known” to her, the respondent averred in para 3 of his statement of defence that “both of them agreed to get married.” He specifically denied in paragraph 8 of his statement of defence that he was just “well known” to the appellant. To him, “there was a relationship between them known to the plaintiff’s parents, siblings and relations.

In her evidence in-chief, appellant would appear to have expanded the real meaning of “well known” in her own way. She opened her evidence in the following ten relevant sentences:

“I know the defendant. He is my man-friend. We met early 1993. We had a boy-friend/girl-friend relationship. This caused problem in his family and he decided to send me to England to school in January 1994… He was the chairman of First Bank… He often came to see me in school. Our relationship was normal. Nothing extra-ordinary to it. Issue of marriage had not been discussed though because on several occasions I raised it he would say he had problem as to his sperm count. The issue of marriage therefore did not arise.”

And so the appellant opened up. She expanded the meaning of “well known” not only as a close acquaintance but in her words “man friend” which to her meant a boy-friend/girl-friend relationship. That is quite different from an intention that two of them should get married some day. In her evidence, what was between them negatively in terms of a possible matrimony, was the respondent’s sperm count. I am therefore not wrong in describing the relationship as one of love and or romance from the point of view of the appellant. The relationship was however much more than the neutral expression of “well known” I now see the reason behind the denial in paragraph 3 of the statement of defence.

Let me briefly summarise appellant’s evidence in respect of the property. It is Plot 999 Cadastral Zone B6, Mabuchi District, Abuja. She applied for land in August 1992. File No. DT291 belongs to her. She completed the application form in her own handwriting and signed it. She paid an application fee of N300.00. That was in August, 1993. Her signature is not on the portion meant for signature of applicant. It is the respondent’s signature and his name, apparently signing for the appellant, An additional fee of N6,700.00 was introduced by the Federal Capital Territory. She paid the fee, vide Exhibits B and B1. Originals of Exhibits B and B1 were handed over to the respondent who was to follow up the application. Respondent sent to the appellant the Certificate of Occupancy for her signature

Respondent refused to give her the Certificate of Occupancy and started developing the land.

The respondent told quite a different story in his statement of defence. Since he did not give evidence in court, I should summarise the evidence of DW1, a builder. He told the court that the appellant told him that she was the proposed wife of the man he was working for. Appellant inspected the building. She returned to the site and effected some corrections to the building. Appellant condemned the cushion chairs made for the house. She brought a welder who did the iron work in the building. He told the court that he worked on the boys quarters and the fencing.

DW2 in his evidence concentrated on the purchase of the land in dispute. He said that as a protocol liaison officer of the First Bank the respondent became more intimate with him, and so he introduced the appellant to him as his fiancee. He ran errands on behalf of the respondent for the appellant. The errands included sending the appellant money to settle her bills and the processing of application for the purchase of land for the appellant. He told the court that the respondent introduced the appellant as fiancee in his house and that the respondent paid the sum of N33,458..75 as fee for the Certificate of Occupancy.

Under cross examination, witness admitted that he is from the same town with the respondent who is like an uncle to him. He said that he settled the telephone bills of the flat respondent hired for the appellant at Maitama. He said that the appellant signed the letter of acceptance of the allocation. He did not know the person who paid the sum of N6,700.00.’

DW3, who works at the Department of Administration at the FCDA ‘did not know the appellant but participated in the processing of application for allocation of land. He said that the respondent paid the balance of N6,700.00 as processing fee.

The appellant, as plaintiff, had filed an action seeking for the following reliefs: