Alhaji Usman Haruna V. Abuja Investment & Property Development Company & Ors (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MOHAMMED MUSTAPHA, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory of the 27th of July 2010 vide an amended notice of appeal filed on the 22nd of June 2016 on the following grounds:
GROUND ONE:
The judgment is unreasonable, unwarranted and cannot be supported, having regards to the weight of evidence adduced at the trial.
GROUND TWO:
The Learned Trial Judge erred in law in granting reliefs to the respondents based on facts which were never pleaded or supported by evidence.
GROUND THREE:
The Learned Trial Judge erred in law in holding that there is no enforceable contract between the Appellant and the Respondents.
GROUND FOUR:
The Learned Trial Judge erred in law by holding that the contract for the sale of shop between the appellant and the 1st and 2nd respondents has been terminated by the subsequent conduct of the Appellant is not meeting up with the conditions of the contract.
GROUND FIVE:
The Learned Trial Judge erred in law and did violence to the principle of law enshrined in the Latin Maxim

1

“nemo dat quod non habet” in holding that the sale of the same shop to the 3rd respondent by the 1st and 2nd respondents after a contract for the sale of the property had been concluded between the Appellant and the Applicant was valid and subsisting.
GROUND SIX:
The Learned Trial Judge erred in law and misapplied the law to the facts in treating the several payments made by the Appellant to the 1st and 2nd respondents as deposits.
The following reliefs were sought at the trial:
1. A declaration that the plaintiff/appellant is the rightful owner of the property in dispute, known as shop No. 208 in Block 19 Wuse Market Abuja.
2. A declaration that the subsequent offer granted to the 2nd defendant/respondent is unlawful without due process and of no effect whatsoever
3. An order granting the possession of the said shop No. 208 Block 19 Wuse Market Abuja to the plaintiff forthwith.
4. An order of perpetual injunction restraining all the defendant, their agents, privies and whatsoever claims through then from ejecting or disturbing the peaceful enjoyment of the plaintiff at the said property mentioned

2

above.
The 3rd respondent counter claimed as follows:
1. A declaration by the Honourable Court that the 3rd Defendant is the lawful and bonafide owner of Shop 208 Block 19 Wuse Market, Abuja.
2. A declaration by the Honourable Court that the offer granted by the plaintiff dated the 22nd of January, 2007 with respect to Shop 208 Block 19 Wuse Market, Abuja is forfeited and void.
3. An order of the Honourable Court granting possession of Shop 208 Block 19 Wuse Market, Abuja to the 3rd Defendant.
4. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff acting vide his agents servants and privies in any capacity whatsoever from the trespassing into shop 208 Block 19 Wuse, Abuja.
5. Cost of litigation N1.5 Million Naira. (See 1st & 2nd respondent’s brief)

From the grounds of appeal two issues were formulated for determination by W.Y. Mamman Esq., of counsel to the Appellant as follows:
Issue One:
Whether the learned trial judge erred in law when he granted reliefs to the Respondent based on the final written address instead of the evidence before him.
Issue Two:
?Whether the learned trial

3

judge erred in law when he relied on the unpleaded facts/evidence of forgery and falsification of documents in his judgment.

Oluwaseun Alabi Esq, of counsel to the 1st and 2nd respondent formulated a lone issue of his own as follows:
Whether the learned trial judge was right in his conclusion that the Appellant?s case failed and in granting the 3rd Defendant’s Counter Claim.

M. Osita Esq., of counsel to the 3rd respondent formulated the following issues for determination by the Court:
Issue One:
Whether the learned trial Court based its judgment on the evidence adduced in Court.
Issue Two:
Whether the trial Court rightly established as an admission of the evidence of alteration, by failure of the Appellant to Cross Examine the DW1 regarding alteration on the face of Exhibit A4.
Issue Three:
Whether the 3rd Defendant is entitled to the ownership of shop 208 Block 19 Wuse Market Abuja, and the entire reliefs sought vide his letter of offer and the Appellant’s offer is deemed forfeited and void.

This appeal will be decided on a sole issue, not only for the purpose of brevity but also because it covers all

4

the other issues formulated adequately, it is thus:
Whether the trial Court erred in law when it granted reliefs to the respondent based on the written address instead of evidence before it, and relied on unpleaded evidence of forgery and falsification in doing so.