Alhaji Nuhu Ayinla V. Mr. Bobson Emmanuel Akinnuli & Anor (2012)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Lagos State presided over by Abiru J. delivered on the 9th May 2005. The Appellant as 1st Defendant at the trial court appealed against the judgment. This is a sister appeal to the one filed as CA/L/288/06. The facts that led to this appeal are as follows:

Both the Appellant and 1st Respondent traced origin of their titles to a common grantor – the 2nd Respondent. The property subject matter of this action is a row of fourteen (14) shops at plot 210, Lagos Badagry Expressway.

The case of the Appellant on the pleadings and evidence is that, he was originally a tenant in the block of shops owned by the 2nd Respondent. He had been a tenant since 1993. However, in 1997, he purchased the shops from the 2nd Respondent. He was issued with a purchase receipt and a Deed of Assignment was executed in his favour. The purchase receipt and Deed of Assignment both made in 1997 were tendered and admitted as “Exhibits D1 and D2”. He subsequently put tenants in the shops.

The case of the Plaintiff/1st Respondent as can be gathered from the pleadings and evidence is that, in 1999, he purchased the property known as plot No. 210, Lagos/Badagry Expressway. According to the Plaintiff/1st Respondent, the said property comprised of six flats with a row of fourteen shops. Exhibit P2, P5 and P6 were given to him as evidence of the fact that he had purchased the aforementioned property.

In proving his case, Plaintiff called three witnesses, while the defence (put together) called five witnesses. At the end of the day, the learned trial judge granted in part the claim of the Claimant, and dismissed the counter-claim of the Appellant. Appellant, being dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment has now appealed to this court.

The Appellant filed an amended notice of appeal on 1st February 2011. The successful party at the lower court also filed a notice of cross appeal on 5th February 2010. The cross appeal was filed by the Claimant/Cross Appellant against the judgment of Justice H.A.O. Abiru of the High Court of Lagos, Lagos State dated 9th of May 2005 for awarding an extremely low sum of N=100,000.00 (One Hundred Thousand Naira only) as the general damages to the Claimant/Cross Appellant and for declining jurisdiction on Claimant/Cross Appellant’s second relief.

The Appellant’s counsel identified 4 issues for determination as follows:

“1. Whether the 1st Respondent’s writ of summons and statement of claim signed by Rhodes & Rhodes were not incompetent. Ground 1 of the Amended notice of appeal;

2. Whether Appellant proved purchase of the 14 shops from the 2nd Defendant and if so, whether, the learned trial judge was not in error in dismissing the counter-claim of the Appellant; grounds 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10;
3. Whether the 2nd Defendant, having sold the 14 shops to the Appellant in 1997, she still had any title to convey to the Plaintiff in 1999 and whether in the face of want of title in the 2nd Defendant, Plaintiff was entitled to any declaration of title to the 14 shops; grounds 15 and 17; and
4. Whether the learned trial judge was not in error in adjudging the Appellant a trespasser on a parcel of land which belong to him and for which he was in possession. Ground 16.

The above issues 2-4 of the Appellant’s brief was also adopted by the 1st Respondent. The 2nd Respondent also adopted the Appellant’s issues as formulated.

I have crystallized the relevant issues germaine to the determination of the appeal as follows:

APPEAL

1. Whether the 1st Respondent’s writ of summons and statement of claim signed by Rhodes and Rhodes were not incompetent (Appeal)
2. Whether the 2nd Defendant/2nd Respondent having sold the 14 shops to the 1st Defendant/Appellant in 1997, she still had any title to convey to the Plaintiff/1st Respondent in 1999 and whether in the face of want of title in the 2nd Respondent, the 1st Respondent was entitled to any declaration of title to the 14 shops. (Appeal)

Please note that issues 2 and 4 of the Appellants are subsumed in issues 1 and 3 and an answer to issues 1 and 3 suffices to answer all complaints raised by the Appellant.

I have painstakingly set out the relevant issues in order to highlight what are the relevant issues in controversy in this appeal calling for our opinion. However, the 2nd issue for determination by the Appellant is an issue that has been thoroughly thrashed in the sister appeal CA/L/288/06. This court had concluded on the merit of that point and found that the finding of the trial court was right to the effect that the 1st Respondent herein was the lawful owner of all the land he claimed and granted declaration of title to both the story building and the shops adjourning same to him. It would amount to vain repetition to repeat our findings and reasons in this appeal. It will be a waste of precious judicial time.