Mr. Solomon Yacham Dikeoch (Substituted For Harrison Dikeocha (Deceased) By Order Of Court Of 15/5/2023) v. Alexander O. Onwuchekwa & Ors (2024)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ABBA BELLO MOHAMMED, JCA (Delivering the leading judgment)

This is an appeal against the final judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja (the trial court), delivered by Hon. Justice I. U. Bello, on the 6th of March, 2015, wherein the 3rd defendant, Harrison Dikeocha (now deceased) was ordered to vacate and handover possession of 2 bedroom flat known as Block C, Flat 2, Ministry of Health Quarters, Phase 4, Kubwa, Abuja, to allow the plaintiff, Alexander Onwuchekwa, who is the 1st respondent herein, to purchase same as the rightful allotee.

The judgment of the trial court is at pages 339 – 346 of the record of appeal.

Dissatisfied with the judgment, the appellant brought this appeal vide notice of appeal filed on 16th April, 2015 which is at pages 347 352 of the record of appeal. The record of appeal was transmitted on 9th April, 2018 and deemed properly transmitted on the 23rd of November, 2020.

At the trial court, the 1st respondent, as plaintiff had sued the 2nd and 3rd respondents as well as one Harrison Dikeocha (now deceased) as 1st, 2nd, and 3rd defendants, respectively.

The said Harrison Dikeocha (now deceased) and the 1st Respondent were employees of the Federal Government of Nigeria deployed to the Federal Ministry of Health, Abuja. Harrison Dikeocha (now deceased) and the 1st Respondent were initially allocated 1 Bedroom each in a 2-Bedroom Flat known as Block C, Flat 2, Ministry of Health Quarters, Kubwa, FCT, Abuja vide letters of allocation which were tendered in evidence as exhibits 1 and D2.

However, Harrison Dikeocha was later posted out of the Federal Ministry of Health to the Federal Inland Revenue Service, and deployed to its Kaduna Office in 2001.

That when the Federal Government embarked on the sale of Federal Government Houses dispute arose between the Harrison Dikeocha (now deceased) and the 1st respondent over who is the rightful person entitled to purchase the property.

The 1st respondent (as plaintiff) instituted the action before the trial court challenging the sale of the property by the 2nd and 3rd respondents to Harrison Dikeocha (now deceased) and claiming the following reliefs which are stated in his amended statement of claim at pages 147 – 165 of the record:

1. A declaration that he is the proper person entitled to the purchase of all that 2-Bedroom Flat known as Block C, Flat 2, Ministry of Health Quarters, Phase 4, Kubwa, Abuja.
2. A declaration that the letter of offer granted him by the 1st defendant and endorsed by the 2nd defendant is still valid.
3. A declaration that the 1st defendants action in refusing to accept the plaintiffs bank draft dated the 27th day of September, 2005 being 10% of the total value of the property is unlawful, null, and void and of no effect.
4. An order of specific performance compelling the 1st and 2nd defendants to accept the plaintiffs bank draft dated 27th September, 2005 and effect the transfer of the property to the plaintiff in accordance with the modalities for the sale of Government Houses in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja and to recognize the plaintiff as the rightful allottee of the 2 Bedroom Flat known as Block C, Flat 2, Ministry of Health Quarters, Phase 4, Kubwa, Abuja.
5. An order ejecting the 3rd respondent or his agents from the said property.

At the end of trial in which parties called witnesses and tendered documentary exhibits, the trial court entered judgment for the 1st respondent and granted his reliefs. Aggrieved with the judgment, Harrison Dikeocha lodged this appeal. Upon his demise, he was substituted with his son, Mr. Solomon Yacham Dikeocha, vide order of this court made on 15th May, 2023.

At the hearing of the appeal on 17th January, 2024, the parties adopted their respective briefs of argument. In the appellant’s brief of argument filed on the 2nd of June, 2023, which was adopted by S. A. Mustapha, Esq., the appellant formulated three (3) issues for determination, as follows:

1. From the totality of the unassailable evidence adduced by the appellant before the court below in establishing his satisfaction of the requirements under the guidelines for the sales of the Federal Government House and coupled with his right of first refusal, whether the appellant had duly accepted the offer for the sale of 2-bedroom Flat known as Block C Flat 2 Ministry of Health Quarters, Phase 4, Kubwa, Abuja, FCT, thereby constituting a valid contract between the appellant and 2nd and 3rd respondent.
2. Whether the learned trial Judge has properly evaluated the evidence before him when he failed to holistically consider the evidence adduced by appellant and 2nd and 3rd respondents and proceeded to act on the contradictory evidence adduced by the 1st respondent which is devoid of probative value in law thereby occasioning miscarriage of justice against the appellant.
3. If the answer to issue two (2) above is in the negative, whether the learned trial Judge relying on the exhibits 5a, b, c, d, e, and f admitted through the 1st respondents witness to come up with his decision without evaluating other exhibits admitted could avail the 1st Respondent the right of refusal as a rightful allottee.

In the 1st respondents brief of argument filed on the 11th of July, 2023 and adopted by N. S. Uthman, Esq., the 1st respondent distilled the following two issues:

1. Whether the appellant has lost his Right of First Refusal which entitled him to the sale of 2 Bedroom Flat known as Block C Flat 2 Ministry of Health Quarters, Phase 4, Kubwa, Abuja considering his non-compliance with the special ways stipulated to constitute acceptance of the offer.
2. Whether the learned trial Judge has properly evaluated the evidence adduced before him in reaching out his decision.

On 21st July, 2023, the appellant also filed a reply brief to the 1st respondents brief of argument. The 2nd and 3rd respondents who were represented by Olalekan Oladapo, Esq. did not file any brief and had nothing to urge the court.

From the submissions of the parties, it seems apparent to me that issue 1 distilled by each of the parties are virtually the same but for the use of words, while issues 2 and 3 distilled by the appellant which interrogates the trial courts evaluation of evidence are aptly captured in the respondents issue 2. For this reason, I shall take the first issue of the appellant, albeit with slight modification, as well as the second issue of the respondent, as the two issues for the determination of this appeal. Accordingly, the issues for determination are as follows: