Chief Guy Ike Ikokwu V. Lad Chrislord Limited & Anor (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The appeal is against the decision of the High Court of Justice of Lagos State (the Court below) dismissing the appellant’s claim for specific performance of contract of the sale of landed property located at No.13 Adeniyi Close, Off Adeniran Ogunsanya Street, Surulere, Lagos and for an order that from the date of the contract of sale no further rent is due from the appellant plus a refund of the sum of N66,355.00 for repair and refurbishing of the landed property.

The appellant’s alternative claim of N14 million general damages for breach of contract to buy the landed property was also dismissed by the Court below.

Unhappy with the decision of the Court below the appellant brought the present appeal challenging the said decision. In the appellant’s brief of argument filed on 04-12-15, the appellant distilled these issues for determination –

“(i) whether the trial Court could validly hold that there was no valid and binding contract between the Appellant and the Respondents for the sale of the property known as No. 13 Adeniyi Jakande Close, off Adeniran

1

Ogunsanya Street, Surulere, Lagos.

(Ground 1).

(ii) In the circumstances of this case, whether the Court below properly assumed jurisdiction to hear and determine the Respondent’s counter claim. (Ground 2 of the grounds of appeal).

(iii) whether the Court below was not wrong when it held that the 2nd Respondent was entitled to possession, outstanding rent, mesne profit and interest from the Appellant when the tenancy had not been properly terminated. (Grounds 3 and 4)?.

?

It was submitted on the first issue that by the series of correspondence between the appellant and the respondents, the latter agreed to sell the property located at No. 13 Adeniyi Jakande Close for N14 million payable within 18 months vide Exhibits A19 and A20 which created an enforceable and binding contract between the parties, therefore the Court below was wrong to hold in page 17 of the additional record of appeal (additional record) that the 1st respondent’s acceptance as reflected in Exhibit A19 and Exhibit B1 was a qualified acceptance and did not constitute a binding agreement between the two parties contrary to Chitty on Contracts (30th Edition) Vol.1 at

2

paragraphs 2 – 123, U.B.A. Ltd. v. Tejumola and Sons Ltd. (1988) 1 Q.L.R.N. 62 at 68.