Ralph Oluwole Osayameh V. Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation & Anor (2009)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the Judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja in suit No FCT/HC/C/99/2001 RALPH OLUWOLE OSAYAMEH V. (1) NIGERIA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION (RECEIVER/LIQUIDATOR OF COMMERCE BANK PLC

(2) NATIONAL OIL AND CHEMICAL MARKETING PLC delivered on the 28th day of June, 2005.

The Appellant as Plaintiff in the lower court claimed against the Defendants now Respondents as follows:-

“(i) A declaration that the tripartite debt-swap contract concluded between the Plaintiff and 1st and 2nd Defendant between the months of March and May 1996 ought to be set aside as having been procured by the undue influence and negligence and /or fraud of the Defendants on the Plaintiff.

(ii) A declaration that the consideration for the transfer of the plaintiff’s property known as Plot 133 Haile Sellassie Street, Asokoro District Abuja to the Defendant having wholly failed, the plaintiff becomes and he is entitled to repossess same.

(iii) An order that the 2nd Defendant do re-convey the property to the plaintiff and take all necessary steps vesting same in the plaintiff.

(iv) An order that the 2nd Defendant pays to the plaintiff the sum of N2 Million per annum from the 1st day of December, 1991 until it delivers up to the Plaintiff possession of the property known as Plot 133 Haile Sellasie Street, Asokoro District Abuja.”

At the conclusion of hearing, the lower court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim in its entirety.

The appellant being dissatisfied with the said Judgment of the lower court now appealed to this court.

The learned counsel for the Appellant formulated three issues for determination as follows:-

(i) Whether the trial court’s decision that ”Exhibits. “P6″ was only an attempt to renege on the tripartite agreement earlier entered into by plaintiff and other parties in this case” was proper in law?

(ii) Whether the trial court’s finding that the 1st Respondent had instructed its solicitors to discontinue the suit it had instituted against the Appellant before the Failed Bank Tribunal and thus abandoned its bid to scuttle the tripartite agreement was intuitive speculative and imaginary?

(iii) Whether the trial court’s decision that the Appellant’s rights under the tripartite contract had not been tampered with or withdrawn and that there has “Therefore been a valid contractual arrangement complete with all the essential ingredients of a contract including consideration was proper in the light of Exhibits P6-P9 the admission of the 1st Respondent in paragraphs 2, 3, and 9 of its 1st Defendant’s statement of Defence and the testimony of DW1 on page 70, of the record of proceedings.