Robert Nwadike V. Rivers State Housing And Property Development Authority & Ors (2011)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ISTIFANUS THOMAS, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The appeal is against the decision of N. Ndu, as he then was Judge, of Rivers State High Court delivered on 12th November, 1999 where in the plaintiff [but now to be simply referred to as the appellant] claims were dismiss in their entirety.

The appellant’s claim at the lower court are as follows:-

28 “[a] A declaration that there is a subsisting contract of sale of No. 54 Circular Road, otherwise called Block 13, 5th Street, Flat 6, Elekahia Housing Estate, Port Harcourt between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant sometime between 7th February, 1991 and 9th January, 1992.

[b] A declaration that the purported sale of the property No. 54 Circular Road, Elekahia Housing Estate Port Harcourt by the 1st Defendant to the 2a Defendant Mr. Innocent Wobidi is null, void and of no effect and afortiori.

[c] An Order for the 5th Defendant to produce and deliver in Court the sale agreement dated 1st February 1992 and registered as No. 64 at page 64 in volume 170 of the Lands Registry (made between the 1st Defendant on the one hand and 2nd Defendant on another hand) for cancellation.

[d] An Order of specific performance directing the 1st Defendant to accept the sum of N11,971.[eleven Thousand, Nine Hundred and Seventy-one Naira] being the outstanding balance of the contract of sale of the property No. 54 Circular Road, Elekahia Housing Estate, Port Harcourt from the Plaintiff as to issue the relevant papers of sale to the aforesaid plaintiff and 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants to record the sale and register same in the Lands Registry at Port Harcourt.

[e] An injunction restraining the 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants from issuing or causing to be issued a Certificate of Occupancy to the 2nd Defendant or treating the 2nd Defendant as the person entitled to statutory right of Occupancy over the property No.54 Circular Road, Elekahia Housing Estate, Port Harcourt and also restraining the 2nd Defendant from accepting a Certificate of Occupancy or facilitating the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants or their agents or servants for himself and for his benefit.

[f] An injunction restraining the 5th Defendant from registering or causing to be registered any Certificate

[g] N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira] special and general damages against the 1st Defendant for The 1st defendant now the 1st respondent, was the River State Housing Authority that controlled housing estate properties and gave them out for rents and for sale to those who had interest to buy. The appellant came into the house in January, 1980, as a tenant, in Block 13, 5th Street, Flat 6 Elekahia Housing Estate, Port Harcourt. On November, 1989, the 1st defendant pasted a notice for cancellation and eviction for those with arrears of rent. The appellant was asked to pack out or pay the outstanding arrears. He paid the sum of N11,000 as arrears. The rent installmental payment was paid through one Mr. Luck Egbe who was the caretaker.

During proceedings at the lower court, the appellant testified to support his claim. He also called two other witnesses. The 1st respondent also called two witnesses who testified on behalf of the 1st respondent.

After close of the suit, the learned trial judge dismissed the appellants claim in its entirety. Dissatisfied with the decision, the appellant filed his notice of appeal on 22-11-1999 containing 3 grounds of appeal. As usual parties filed their respective briefs. Appellant’s Brief was filed on 17-03-2005 but deemed filed on 19-08-2006. The 2nd respondent’s brief was also filed on 23-03-2007, but the brief was deemed filed on 3-5-2007. The 3rd -5th respondents brief was filed on 14-01-2008 but deemed filed on 21-9-2010. The appellants reply brief to the 3rd – 5th Respondents’ was filed on 28-10-2010. The 1st respondent’s brief was filed on 3rd November, 2006.

The appellant raised two issues for determination and they read as follows:-

“1. Whether the lower court was correct when it held that the appellant was never offered the property for purchase and therefore was not a bona-fide purchaser of same.