Apic Nigeria Limited & Ors V. C.P.E. Basic X Nig. Limited (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A. 

This is an appeal against the judgment of IPAYE, J. of the Lagos State High Court delivered on 3rd October, 2012.
The suit in the lower Court was commenced by an Amended Writ of Summons and Amended Statement of Claim, wherein the Claimant claimed the following reliefs:
1. A declaration that the only valid Deed of Development lease between the Claimant and the 1st Defendant are the Deed of Development lease stamped on 15/7/98 and the Supplemental Deed dated 30/9/98.
2. A declaration that the undated Deed of Development lease granting the 1st Defendant a lease of 20 years and purportedly made between the Claimant and the 1st Defendant is a forgery.
3. A Declaration that any agreement between the 1st Defendant and the 2nd – 21st Defendants purporting to grant the 2nd ? 21st Defendants a tenure that is beyond 31st July, 2004 is null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
4. A Declaration that the 1st Defendant is not entitled to collect any rent from the 2nd ? 21st Defendants as from 1st August, 2004.
5. An order

1

directing the 2nd-21st Defendants to pay their rents with effect from the 1st day of August, 2004 to the Claimants until they vacate the property.

Pleadings were filed and exchanged between parties after which judgment was granted on the 3rd October, 2012 wherein all the reliefs sought by the Claimant were granted.

The Appellant dissatisfied with the judgment filed a Notice of Appeal dated 22nd October, 2012. The Respondent also being dissatisfied with a portion of the judgment filed a Notice of Cross Appeal dated 27th November, 2012.

The Appellant’s brief dated 3rd April, 2013, and filed 8th April, 2012 was settled by Rotimi Seriki of Rotimi Seriki & Co. The Appellant also filed a reply brief dated 10th June, 2013 and filed on 11th June, 2013 but deemed properly filed on 22nd January, 2014. Five issues were settled for determination thus:
“1. Whether the learned trial judge was right in arriving at the conclusion that the Claimant (Respondent) did not receive or execute a purported 20 years lease?
2. Whether the learned trial judge was right in arriving at the conclusion that the 20 years Development lease (Exhibit 10) is

2

a forgery and a fraudulent document?
3. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the 20 years Development lease (Exhibit 10b) was invalid, null, and void for not containing a commencement date?
4. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in refusing to admit in evidence as an exhibit a Certified True Copy of the judgment delivered by Mr. A. O. Isaac Chief Magistrate 1 of the Magistrates Court of Lagos State in CHARGE NO. A/43/2005 COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v. NASIRU AROWOGBOLA AKINLUSI?
5. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in granting all the reliefs sought by Claimant (Respondent)?”

The Respondent on the other hand filed his brief/Cross Appeal on the 9th May, 2013 and same was filed same day. It was settled by Emmanuel Udoka of Emmanuel Udoka & Co.
The Respondent adopted all the issues raised for determination by the Appellant in his brief. Therefore, these issues shall be adopted by the Court, however issues 1-3 of this appeal shall be grouped together as all 3 issues touches on the contention arising from the Deed of Development Lease, while the last two issues shall be treated

3

separately.

ISSUES 1 – 3
Appellant argued firstly that the trial Court relied so much on the testimony of CW1 & CW4 to arrive at the conclusion that the Respondent did not receive a copy of the 20 years Deed of Development Lease, nor execute same. He referred to the pleadings filed by parties and. submitted that parties did not join issues as touching the time and date of the execution of the Deed i.e. Exhibit 10b, based on this he submitted that the judge acted in error. He thus contended that the learned trial judge discharged and acquitted DW1 of the offence of conspiracy and forgery of the said Exhibit 10b.

The Respondent on the other hand submitted that contrary to the argument of the Appellant, both parties actually joined issues on the receipt and execution of Exhibit 10b. He referred to the Amended Statement of claim, the testimony of PW1 & DW1 all at pages 297, 545 and 595 respectively of the records. He then contended that the onus of proving the receipt of the Exhibit in contention lies on the Appellants since they alleged that the Respondents received it. He cited Section 131 of the Evidence Act, 2011 and FATB v.