Mr. Abraham Imhanbor (Trading Under The Name And Style Of Syn-maccass Ventures) v. Mr. Osadebamwen Ekuase & Ors (2024)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, JCA (Delivering the leading judgment)

Before the High Court of Justice, Edo State, sitting at Sabongidda Ora Judicial Division (hereinafter referred to as the lower court), the appellant, as claimant, instituted an action against the respondents, as defendants, wherein he claimed as follows:

1. A declaration by this honourable court that the claimant is the beneficial owner and the person entitled to the award of a statutory right of occupancy in and over all that piece or parcel of land measuring 45 feet by 32 feet with three stores which is part of a larger piece or parcel of land measuring 100 feet by 50 feet lying and situated at No. 96 Wire Road, Benin City, Edo State.
2. A declaration that the purported sale and transfer of the piece of Land measuring 45 feet by 32 feet and the three stores lying and situate at No. 96 Wire Road, Benin City in Edo state by the 1st defendant to the 2 and 37 defendants is null and void.
3. An order of court setting aside the sale of the piece or parcel of land measuring 45 feet by 32 feet with the three stores situate therein by the 1st defendant to the 3rd defendant.
4. The sum of N1,000,000.00 (One million naira) as general damages for trespass by the defendants into claimant’s land.
5. An order of perpetual injection restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, privies and assigns from further trespassing into claimants land.

In the alternative:

a. An order of court directing the 2nd and 3rd defendants to pay the claimants the sum of N780,000.00 (Seven hundred and eighty thousand naira) being the sum owed the claimant by the 1st defendant (their predecessor in title).

b. Interest rate of 25% per annum on the sum of N780,000.00 until the judgment sum is paid.

The facts giving rise to the claim can be summarised thus:

In March 2009, the claimant, now appellant, was approached by the 1st defendant, now respondent, to give him an interest free friendly loan to enable him enhance his business of general contract work and international marketing which was in a bad state.

Upon that request, the appellant gave the 1st respondent the sum of N276,000.00 (Two hundred and seventy-six thousand naira) to be paid back in eighteen months, that is on or before the 13th of September, 2010.

A loan agreement was executed by them. The 1st respondent secured the loan with photocopies of the title documents of the house, part of which he inherited from his late father at No. 96, Wire Road, Benin City.

The documents included the minutes of sharing, Oba’s approval and an approved building plan for the property. The three stores the 1st respondent inherited from his father was used to secure the loan.

After a while, the 1st respondent requested for additional loan and the appellant gave him a second loan of N584,000.00 (Five hundred and eighty-four thousand naira) interest free, and the 1st respondent executed a loan agreement dated the 7th of September, 2009.

The total loan stood at N860,000. The second loan was also secured by his three stores lying and situate at No. 96, Wire Road, Benin City.

According to the appellant, the 1st respondent only paid back the sum of N80,000.00 (Eighty thousand naira) at the expiration of the period given to him to pay back the loan, leaving a balance of N780,000.00 (Seven hundred and eighty thousand naira) unpaid.

When the 1st respondent could not pay back the loan, he transferred his three stores and its appurtenances to the appellant by a Memorandum of Transfer dated 7th of September, 2009. Later, the appellant heard from one of the tenants that the entire house together with the three stores transferred to him by the 1st respondent had been sold by the 1st respondent and his siblings, without the 1st respondent refunding his money. The house, according the appellant, had been demolished and a new structure erected on the land by the 3rd respondent under the supervision of the 2nd respondent, who was found on the land by the appellant.