Chief Edmund Ezeani V. Sir Philip Moore Ezeani (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MASSOUD ABDULRAHMAN OREDOLA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court of Anambra State sitting at Onitsha (hereinafter after referred to as the Lower Court) delivered by Hon. Justice G. C. Anulude, on the 30th day of January, 2013. The suit was taken out by the plaintiff/respondent vide a writ of summons and statement of claim dated and filed on the 3rd day of November, 2009 wherein the plaintiff/respondent claimed against the defendant/appellant for the following reliefs:

?1. An order directing the Defendant to pay over to the plaintiff the following:-

a. The undeclared sum of money being Two Million Naira (N2,000,000.00) ordinarily payable to him (the Plaintiff) as his principal by the defendant in relation to the proceeds of the sale of No. 18A Okolo Street Onitsha which said amount arose in excess of the sum of N25,000.000.00 (Twenty Five Million Naira) which he declared as the selling price of the Plaintiff?s said landed property.

b. The sum of N1,150,000.00 (One Million, One Hundred Fifty Thousand Naira) the Defendant had claimed he had over paid

1

as commission to the agents in relation to the sale of the Plaintiff?s said landed property.

c. The excess sum of N2, 000,000.00 (Two Million Naira) the Defendant had claimed he had handed over to Plaintiff?s brother, Joseph Ezeani, out of the proceeds of the said sale.?

Pleadings were filed and exchanged by the parties and the case was duly heard by the learned trial judge. The crux of the matter between the parties pertained to an agency relationship, whereby the plaintiff/respondent authorized the defendant/appellant to be engaged with the sale of his late father?s property on his behalf, and in respect of which he and his younger brother, Joseph Ezeani were granted a letter of administration to manage and deal with accordingly.

Their business relationship was reduced into writing through a power of attorney. The said power of attorney contained in clear and unambiguous terms/words, the least amount the defendant/appellant was expected to sell the said property, and how the proceeds of the said sale would be shared. The defendant/appellant however claimed that the terms of his engagement as specified was later modified by

2

the plaintiff/respondent orally. In proof of his claim, the plaintiff/respondent called a single witness, Maria Ezeani, who incidentally is his blood sister. The defendant/appellant on his own part testified for himself. At the close of hearing, the learned counsel to both parties addressed the Lower Court. Thereafter, the learned trial judge after the giving of proper and due consideration to the pieces of evidence adduced before him and arguments canvassed in support thereof by learned counsel to both parties; entered judgement for the plaintiff/respondent in terms of his claim.

The defendant/appellant was apparently dissatisfied with the said judgment, thus, he appealed against the same vide a notice of appeal filed on the 18th day of March, 2013. The said notice of appeal was later, with the leave of this Court granted on 22nd day of October, 2013 amended and subsequently filed on the 23rd day of October, 2013. The defendant/appellant appealed against the said judgment upon sixteen (16) grounds of appeal as contained in the aforedescribed amended notice of appeal. Henceforth in this judgment, the plaintiff/respondent would be referred to as the

3