Hon. Eseme Sunday Eyiboh V. Dahiru Sheikh Mujaddadi & Ors. (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ABUBAKAR DATTI YAHAYA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal has emanated from the judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, delivered on the 29th of March, 2010, wherein it dismissed the Suit filed by the appellant, as plaintiff, against the respondents as defendants.

The 1st -3rd respondents are the Administrators of the Estate of late Sheikh Mujaddadi, having been issued with Letters of Administration. They put up a property, known as No. 7A Iyamoye Close, off Gimbiya street, Garki II, Abuja (the property in question) for sale. The Appellant indicated interest in purchasing the property. The selling price was put at N100 million Naira and N5 million as agency fee. A contract of sale (Exhibit A) and a Deed of Assignment (Exhibit B) were drawn up. Only the 1st and 2nd respondents signed these documents as the 3rd respondent did not sign.

The 1st -3rd respondents later sold the property in question, to the 4th respondent who paid the purchase price, the 5% agency fee and the relevant documents were executed by the 1st -3rd respondents.

The appellant was aggrieved by this and he look out a Writ of Summons against the 1st -3rd respondents and the 4th respondent was later joined as the 4th respondent. The Appellant claimed three reliefs thus –

(1) A declaration that there is a valid and subsisting contract for the sale of the property …… between the Appellant and the Administrators of Estate of Sheikh Mujaddadi, the Respondent (sic).

(2) An order of specific performance to compel the Respondent (sic) to execute all and any document to perfect the title of the Appellant and to do all that is reasonably necessary in the circumstance to give the Appellant beneficial ownership of the property described.

(3) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Respondents 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 parties exchanged their pleadings and the matter went to trial, at the end of which the case of the appellant was dismissed. Aggrieved by that decision, the appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with ten grounds of appeal. From these ten grounds, two Issues for determination were distilled in the Appellant’s brief, settled by F. R. Onoja, on the 12/8/10. They are: –

(1) Whether the learned trial judge was right when his Lordship held that Exhibits A and B admitted in evidence in proof of the plaintiff’s claim are void merely because they were not signed by all of the administrators of the Estate (the 1st -3rd Respondents).

(2) Whether the learned trial judge properly evaluated the evidence and came to the right decision.

The respondents also identified two Issues for determination in their joint brief, settled by J. J. Usman, as follows: –

(1) Whether the learned trial judge was right when he held that there is no contract between the Appellant and the 1st -3rd Respondents and whether the learned trial judge was right when he held that there is a contract between the 1st -3rd Respondent and the 4th Respondent.

(2) Whether the learned trial judge was right when he held that the Appellant has not proved his case to entitle him to the reliefs sought before the court below.