Alhaji Aminu Surajo Funtua V. Dr. Salisu Ahmad Ingawa (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Katsina State in Suit No. KTH/FT/42/2013 delivered by Honorable Justice Ibrahim M. Bako on the 12th of February 2014. The Respondent, as plaintiff, commenced the action in the lower Court against the Appellant, as defendant, by an Originating Summons dated the 14th of January, 2013 wherein he posed one question for determination, and this was:

“Whether the Appellant still maintained the ownership of the property situate and lying at Layin Makarbarta, Dandaji Area, Funtua covered by the Katsina State Government Certificate of Occupancy No. KT. 13938 having sold same to the Plaintiff via a Deed of Assignment executed on the 25th of April, 2010.”

Consequent on the answering of the question, the Respondent claimed the following reliefs:

“i. A declaration that the Respondent is the rightful owner of the property situate and lying at Layin Makarbarta, Dandaji Area, Funtua covered by the Katsina State Government Certificate of Occupancy No KT. 13938.

ii. An order directing the Appellant and/or any other person occupying the premises to vacate and deliver up possession of same to the Respondent with immediate effect.”

The case of the Respondent in the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons was that the Respondent had a business relationship with the Appellant and that the he carried on the business transactions through his agent, one Alhaji Bello Abubukar, and that in the course of the relationship, the Appellant became indebted to him. It was his case that by reason of the indebtedness, the Appellant agreed to sell a house situate and lying at Layin Makarbarta, Dandaji Area, Funtua covered by the Katsina State Government Certificate of Occupancy No. KT. 13938 to him and he purchased the property for the sum N8 Million and that the parties executed a Deed of Assignment on the 25th of April, 2010 and the Appellant handed to him the certificate of occupancy of the house; a copy each of the Deed of Assignment and of the certificate of occupancy were attached as exhibits. It was his case that by the terms of the Deed of Assignment, the Appellant was allowed a grace period of eight months to stay in the house and that this expired in December 2010 and that the Appellant was obligated to hand over the vacant possession of the property to him at the expiration of the grace period, but that after the perfection of the sale of the property and the expiration of the grace period, the Appellant has refused to vacate the property and hand him possession despite repeated demands.

The Appellant filed a counter affidavit in response to the Originating Summons and he admitted collecting monies amount to N8 Million from one Alhaji Bello Abubakar to augment his business and with a promise to pay back within one year and that when he failed to repay the money as agreed, he was granted a further extension of one year to repay the money. It was his case that sometime in 2010 Alhaji Bello Abubakar informed him that the money loaned to him actually belonged to the Respondent and that the Respondent wanted his money back immediately and that when he was unable to raised the funds to repay, Alhaji Bello Abubakar suggested to him the option of selling the property in dispute to the Respondent. It was his case that he agreed to sell the property to the Respondent for the sum of N8 Million in settlement of the loan and that he executed the Deed of Assignment in respect thereof in the presence of the District Head of Funtua and that he handed over the certificate of occupancy over to Alhaji Bello Abubakar. It was his case that sometime in 2011,Alhaji Bello Abubakar came back to tell him that he had the instruction of the Respondent to cancel the sale of property transaction and to demand for the refund of the N8 Million and that in furtherance of this fact, Alhaji Bello Abubakar, on behalf of the Respondent, collected from him three truck loads of maize, with each truck containing three hundred bags and thus making a total of nine hundred bags, at the agreed cost price of N5,700.00 per bag and totaling N5.13 Million in partial settlement of the outstanding sum of N8 Million and this left a balance of N2.87 Million; documents which the Appellant sTated evidenced the transaction were attached as exhibits.

It was the case of the Appellant that after a long period of time, he returned home one evening to learn that Alhaji Bello Abubakar, acting on behalf of the Respondent, brought valuers to the property in issue for the purpose of valuation with an intention to sell same and that he caused his Counsel to write a letter to Alhaji Bello Abubakar and he later reported the matter at the Police Area Command. It was his case that at the Police Area Command, the Area Commander, after listening to Alhaji Bello Abubakar, turned him into the accused person and alleged that he forged the signature of Alhaji Bello Abubakar on the documents he produced to evidence the maize transaction and that he was subsequently charged before the Sharia Court II, Funtua for various offences. It was his case that the Presiding Judge in the Court advised the parties to go back home and seek to resolve the matter amicably, but that all efforts to have the matter resolved amicably failed and that there was no subsisting Deed of Assignment between him and the Respondent to warrant the reliefs sought in the matter by the Respondent.

The lower Court took arguments on the Originating Summons and it delivered a considered judgment wherein it answered the question posed on the Originating Summons in the negative and it granted the reliefs sought by the Respondent. The Appellant was dissatisfied with the judgment and he caused his Counsel to file a notice of appeal dated the 12th of February, 2015 against it and the notice of appeal contained three grounds of appeal. In arguing the appeal before this Court, Counsel to the Appellant filed a brief of arguments dated the 16th of March, 2015 on the 8th of April, 2015. Counsel to the Respondent reacted by filing a brief of arguments dated the 11th of May, 2015 on the 13th of May, 2015. Counsel to the Appellant filed a reply brief of arguments dated the 5th of June, 2015 on the 8th of June, 2015. At the hearing of the appeal, Counsel to the parties relied on and adopted their respective briefs of arguments.

Counsel to the Appellant formulated two issues for determination in this appeal and these were:

“i. Whether from the available facts and the law, the lower Court was not wrong in determining and transferring ownership of the disputed landed property in favour of the Respondent.

ii. Whether having regards to the available facts and the law, the Respondent is not bound by the acts of Bello Abubakar, his agent in the transaction between the parties, to have warranted the ruling of the lower Court to the contrary.”

Counsel to the Respondent adopted the two issues for determination as formulated by Counsel to the Appellant.