Mrs. Clementine C. Igwebe V. Saidashs International Limited & Anor (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MOHAMMED MUSTAPHA, J.C.A. 

 This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja of the 28th of December, 2004, Coram Justice U.N. Anyanwu, by a notice of appeal dated the 16th of November, 2004; it is to be heard by an order of this Court on the briefs of the appellant and the 1st respondent only.

Briefly stated the facts of the case at the trial were that the 1st respondent offered the appellant Plot 2656 Maitama Abuja, for sale, but it was later replaced with plot 785 Wuse 2 District, Abuja subject to payment of an additional payment of N3,000,000, as balance, an earlier payment of N1.3 was acknowledged, vide Exhibit B.

The appellant while accepting the terms in Exhibit A insisted on the payment of the N3 million, only on seeing the Certificate of Occupancy and conducting a search “?as well as the deed of assignment”; that was interpreted as a counter offer which vitiated the contract.

?Supra Investment Ltd the owner subsequently demarcated and sold parts of the land in dispute to the 1st and 2nd respondents, and informed the appellant vide Exhibit F.

1

At the trial the plaintiff/appellant sought the following reliefs:
1. A declaration that the agreement between the 1st defendant and the plaintiff for the assignment of the property measuring 12,000 square meters, lying and known as plot 785 Wuse II District Abuja covered by and more specifically described and delineated by the Certificate of Occupancy No. FCT/ABU/MISC.674 dated 15th November 1994 is enforceable by an order of specific performance.
2. An order of specific performance directing the 1st defendant to perform the agreement to assign to the plaintiff the property measuring 12.000 square meters lying and situated at Plot 785 Wuse II, District Abuja covered by the Certificate of Occupancy No FCT/ABU/MISC.674 dated 15th November, 1994 and to execute all documents necessary to facilitate such assignment on the terms contained in the defendant’s letter of offer dated 27th November 1992 and the plaintiff’s acceptance thereof by letter dated 4th December 1992.
3a. An order of this Honorable Court authorizing the plaintiff to pay the balance of the agreed consideration being the sum of N3,000,000.00 (Three Million) into this Honorable

2

Court and a further order mandating the 1st defendant to receive the said sum of N3,000,000.00 (Three Million) from the registrar of this Honourable Court.
3b. An order of this Honorable Court compelling the 1st and 2nd defendants to hand over to the plaintiff the Original Certificate of Occupancy No. FCT/ABU/MISC.674 and all other documents of title/consents/approvals relating to the land situated at plot 785 Wuse II District Abuja in the possession of the 1st and 2nd defendants.
4. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants, their officers, agents assigns or otherwise howsoever from interfering with plaintiffs possession of the said property in its entirety.
5. Damages in the total sum of N10,000,000.00
6. Costs of this action.

The trial Court refused to grant the reliefs sought, leading to this appeal on the following grounds shorn of their particulars:
GROUND A:
The learned trial Court erred in law and thereby occasioned a great miscarriage of justice when it held that:
“To my mind the 2nd and 3rd Defendants had no reason to suspect any 3rd party interest and the 1st defendant did not

3

inform them of any. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants are innocent purchasers of Plots from a larger whole without knowledge of the plaintiff’s interest.
GROUND B:
The trial Court erred in law and thereby came to a wrong conclusion when despite finding as a fact and declaring “that there was in fact an enforceable contract of sale between 1st defendant and the plaintiff for the assignment of the property measuring about 12,000 square meters lying and known as Plot 785 Wuse II District Abuja covered by and more specifically described and delineated by the Certificate of Occupancy No. FCT/ABU/MISC 674 dated 15th November 1994” the learned trial Court felt itself unable to “order specific performance on the grounds that the order will cause severe hardships to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants”.
GROUND C:
The learned trial Court misdirected itself and thereby came to a wrong conclusion when it stated:
?That next question is whether the 2nd and 3rd defendants had notice or reasonably ought to have notice of the contract of sale between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant.”
GROUND D:
The learned trial Court erred in law and thereby

4

occasioned a miscarriage of justice when it held that:
“The 2nd and 3rd defendants are innocent purchasers of plots from a larger whole without knowledge of the plaintiff’s interest. However, even if they were aware of the plaintiff’s interest in the land, it can be reasonable (sic) assumed that the plaintiff was a buyer like themselves.”
GROUND E:
The learned trial Court erred in law and thereby came to a wrong conclusion when it ordered that the 2nd defendant deposit the Certificate of Occupancy in respect of the land in dispute in Court and further ordered “the 1st defendant is to draw up a Deed of Assignment on behalf of the plaintiff. Furthermore the 1st defendant will draw up an agreement for joint custody for all the 3 buyers and the Certificate of Occupancy deposited in a Bank of the buyers choice.”
GROUND F:
The learned trial Court erred in awarding the sum of N100,000 as nominal damages.
?
From these grounds of appeal three issues were formulated for determination in the brief settled by P.I.N. Ikwueto Esq., SAN of counsel to the appellant, dated 16th of September, 2009 and deemed properly filed and served on the 7th March