Pada Chabasaya V Joe Anwasi (2010)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

M. MUKHTAR, J.S.C.

The respondent as a plaintiff in the High Court of Kaduna State instituted an action on the undefended list for the following reliefs:-

“1. The Plaintiff claims against the Defendant is (sic) the sum of (N70,000.00) only being the agreed purchase price of premises situate at No. AL 10 Kudanda Street/Kigo Road, Nassarawa Village, Kaduna property of the Plaintiff which the Plaintiff assigned to the Defendant, which sum the Defendant has neglected and refused to pay despite repeated demands.

  1. Interest at the rate of 21% per annum from 15th January 1991 till the date of Judgment and 10% per annum from the date of Judgment until the claim is totally liquidated.

WHEREOF the Plaintiff claim the said seventy thousand Naira (N70,000.00) from the Defendant and interest thereon at the rate of 21% from 15/1/91 and 10% until the debt is totally liquidated by the Defendant.”

The defendant who is the appellant in this appeal filed a notice of intention to defend the suit, and the suit was transferred to the general cause list, whereby pleadings were exchanged. The plaintiff as the owner of landed property situate at No. AL 10 Kudandan Street also known as No. 36 Kigo Road, Nassarawa Village Kaduna covered by Certificate of Occupancy No. CHLG/B/000/194 gave the defendant three rooms in the property to occupy at the rent of N25 per month per room. The plaintiff later put the property in the market, initially at N35,000.00 and later increased it to N70,000.00 after some repairs were carried out. The defendant had offered to purchase the house, and after the increase the plaintiff informed him of the increase. A new agreement reflecting the new price was signed by both parties. Whilst the defendant was sourcing for the funds to pay, the plaintiff gave consent to the land Registry to process a new certificate of occupancy for the defendant. Unknown to the plaintiff, the defendant connived with the Land Registry Authorities to procure another certificate of occupancy of the property and started collecting rent from some tenants even though he had not paid anything for it. In his statement of claim the plaintiff claimed as follows:-

See also  The M. V. “caroline Maersk” Sister Vessel To M.v. “christian Maersk” & Ors V. Nokoy Investment Limited (2002) LLJR-SC

“(i) A DECLARATION that the plaintiff is still the owner of the property situated and being at NO. AL 10 Kudandan Road Alias No. 36 Kigo Road Nassarawa Village Kaduna. Covered by Certificate of Occupancy NO. CHLG/B/000/194.

(ii) A DECLARATION that the Certificate of Occupancy purportedly procured by the Defendant in respect of the said property is null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

(iii) AN ORDER restraining the Defendant from parading himself as the landlord of the said premises.

(iv) AN ORDER directing the Defendant to pay to the plaintiff, arrears of Rent of the two (2) Rooms occupied by the Defendant from March 1991 at the Rate of N25.00 per room until the date of his vacation from the said premises.

(v) AN ACCOUNT of all monies collected by the Defendant in the said premises while parading himself as the Landlord from the said four tenants at N25.00 per room from March 1991 to 16/1/92 and thereafter until the final determination of this Suit.”

The defendant stated that he and the plaintiff signed an agreement dated 12/3/90, whereof the plaintiff agreed to co-operate with the defendant to obtain loan from the Federal Mortgage Bank for the purchase of the plaintiff’s house and towards this the plaintiff gave him his Local Government Certificate of Occupancy No. CHLG/3/000/94 for conversion.

According to the defendant it was he who renovated the premises, and there was no other agreement dated 15/1/91 between them. A new certificate of occupancy No. 17828 was issued to the defendant on the said property after the conversion. However, the defendant admitted in his statement of defence that he had not paid anything to the plaintiff in respect of the sale of the house, as the Federal Mortgage Bank refused to give him the loan. Upon that the defendant counter claimed against the plaintiff as follows:-

See also  Asuquo Etim & Anor V. The Queen (1964) LLJR-SC

“( 1) In COUNTER-CLAIM against the Plaintiff, the Defendant repeats all the averments contained in paragraph 1-21 of the statement of defence and they are hereby adopted as part of this counter-claim.

(2) With reference to paragraph 14 of the statement of defence, the Defendant will aver at the hearing that by reason of the said publication the Defendant had been injured in his credit character and reputation and had been brought into public scandal, hatred, ridicule and contempt.

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *