Hon. Eseme Sunday Eyiboh v. Dahiru Sheikh Mujaddadi (2021)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

This appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division delivered on 1st February, 2013, which affirmed the judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Abuja.

The appeal is predicated on the amended notice of appeal filed on 13th November, 2020.

The facts that gave rise to this appeal are as follows: The 1st – 3rd respondents are administrators of the Estate of Late Sheikh Mujaddadi. They offered a property belonging to the deceased located at Cadastral Zone A03 Abuja, covered by Certificate of Occupancy No. 12caw-14cld-55f7r-a082u-10, for sale sometime in 2007. The appellant indicated interest in purchasing the property.

The 1st – 3rd respondents contended that the selling price was put at N100 million plus N5 million as 5% agency fee. A contract of sale and deed of assignment (exhibits A & B) were drawn up but signed by only the 1st and 2nd respondents.

It was also contended by the 1st – 3rd respondents that the agreement was not concluded and the 3rd respondent did not execute the documents because the appellant refused to pay the agency fee.

The property was eventually sold to the 4th respondent, who paid the purchase price as well as the agency fee.

Relevant documents were executed by all the administrators in his favour. The proceeds of the sale to the 4th respondent were shared among all the beneficiaries of the estate.

The appellant was aggrieved and instituted an action before the High Court of the FCT, initially against the 1st – 3rd respondents. He later sought and was granted leave to join the 4th respondent as 4th defendant in the suit. He claimed as follows:

1. A declaration that there is a valid and subsisting contract for the sale of the property consisting of a five-bed room duplex with two rooms, guest chalet and two room boys’ quarters with appurtenances covered by Certificate of Occupancy No. 12 caw-14cld-55f7r-a082u located at Cadastral Zone A03, Garki Abuja between the plaintiff and the administrators of the Estate of Sheikh Majaddadi, the defendant.
2. An order of specific performance to compel the defendant to execute all and any document to perfect the title of the plaintiff and do all that is reasonably necessary in the circumstances to give the plaintiff the beneficial ownership of the property described.
3. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, by themselves, their servants, privies, agents or any person claiming through or under them from selling, or causing to be sold, the property aforementioned, to any other person or persons howsoever and in whatsoever manner.

The defendants filed a joint statement of defence wherein the 4th respondent raised a counter-claim. It was subsequently withdrawn and dismissed.

One of the issues that came up at the trial was the involvement of one Jamilu Mujaddadi, a biological son of the deceased (but not one of the administrators) in the transaction with the appellant. It was the appellant’s contention that Jamilu acted in the sale of the property to him as agent of the 1st-3rd respondents and that he signed the deed of assignment and contract of sale as witness to the transaction. He also pleaded that he made a payment of N100 million to the 1st-3rd respondents via three Bank PHB Manager’s cheques.

At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge made the following findings.

1. That the Contract of Sale and Deed of Assignment (exhibit A & B) were void, having not been signed by all the administrators and there being no evidence of concurrence in the sale by all of them.
2. That Jamilu Sheikh Mujaddadi, a beneficiary of the Estate was an agent of the administrators only for the purpose of finding a buyer and had no authority to sell, hand over documents or deliver possession to the appellant.
3. That payment of 5% agency fee was a condition precedent to the sale of the property.
4. That there was no evidence to prove that the appellant made payment to the Administrators of the estate. The court found that he made payment to Jamilu who had no authority to sell the property.
5. That the Deed of Assignment in favour of the 4th respondent, who had fulfilled all the conditions of the contract, was duly executed by all three Administrators and was therefore valid.

On these grounds, the appellant’s claim was dismissed. An appeal to the Court of Appeal was unsuccessful, as the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

The appellant is still dissatisfied and has further appealed to this court vide his amended notice of appeal filed on 13/11/2020 and deemed filed on 20/9/2021.