Muraino Onilewaji & Ors V. M.O. Mudkas (Nigeria) Enterprise Limited & Ors (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Lagos State presided over by HON. JUSICE A.J. COKER and dated 25th day of September, 2008.

The judgment was delivered in favour of the Claimants/Respondents, in respect of an Agreement concerning a land. The Defendants/Appellants being dissatisfied, filed a Notice of Appeal with 9 grounds of Appeal dated 13/1/09, and filed on the same date.

In line with the rules of court, Appellant filed their Appellant brief which is dated and filed 21/11/2012 but deemed filed on 23/9/14. Appellant also filed a Reply brief dated 8/11/2013 and deemed filed on 23/9/14. It was settled by Otunba Segun Oladitan. The Respondents also filed their Respondents briefs dated and filed 20/1/14 and was settled by R.O. Samuel Esq.

The summary of facts of the case is that the Appellants as customary owners entered into an Agreement with the Respondent via the Director of the 1st Respondent to get Maidan Village excised from the Lagos State Government’s acquisition some time in 1988.

An agreement was executed between the parties and a photocopy of the agreement was given to the Appellant’s family. After waiting for a long time in expectation of the result of the assignment undertaken by the Respondents, the Appellant had recourse to accompany the Respondent to the Surveyor General’s Office.

On getting there, the parties later discovered that the Appellant could not seek excision through agents, and that only members of the Appellants’ village would be entitled to information. They also discovered that excision had been granted as back of 1991 and further enquiry on such will not be welcomed.

The Appellants’ later led government surveyors to the village and eventually produced a survey plan without any input from the Respondent.

The pillars and perimeter survey of the land was done by the surveyor General’s office, while Appellant cleared and did the layout of the area through third parties.

The said agreement was found to have been executed on a Saturday before a commissioner for Oaths of the Magistrate court and there was no proper illiterate jurat on the face of it.

Judgment was entered for the Respondent in the lower court upon a statement of claim which was signed in the name of a law firm and not in the name of a legal practitioner.

The Appellants in their brief had four issues for determination. Thus:

1. Whether the judgment of the lower court is not completely flawed on the ground that the statement of claim was signed in the name of a law firm, instead of in the name of a legal practitioner
2. Whether a contract can be said to have been wholly or substantially performed in the absence of any evidence of the work done or the furnish in g of consideration,
3. Whether the Agreement is not void and unenforceable where the acts to be performed are in breach of the law and public policy.
4. Whether an order of specific performance will be made when title to the land is vested in a third party and there is no clear identity of the land.

The Respondent adopted the issues of the Appellants which also shall form the issues for determination.

ISSUES 1