Simeon Olusoji Kuforiji & Anor V. V.y.b (Nigeria) Limited (1981)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

O. OBASEKI, J.S.C.

The appellant herein, who was the first defendant in the High Court of Lagos State, Lagos Judicial Division, has brought this appeal against the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal delivered on the 23rd day April, 1980 in an appeal he lodged to that court against the decision of the High Court (Dosumu, J., as he was then).

The claims endorsed on the writ of summons filed in the High Court were for:

“(i) A declaration that the Deed of sublease Title No. MO.9261 dated 18th February, 1971 is null and void.

(ii) An order that the Register of Titles be rectified by deleting all entries relating to the sub-lease from the register.

(iii) A declaration that an agreement made on the 18th day of February, 1971, between the plaintiff of the one part and the defendants of the other part in which the plaintiff promised to sell and assign the residue of the term of years in the land comprised in Title No MO. 1647 is void or (in the alternative) voidable.

(iv) In the alternative to claim (iii), the plaintiff further claims an order to have the said agreement rescinded or set aside.

(v) Such further order or orders as the court may direct.”

Pleadings, on the order of the court, were filed and served.

The main complaint of the plaintiff/respondent which is a limited liability company, incorporated in Nigeria, was the representation as to the marital status of the 1st defendant/appellant, Mr. Simeon Olusoji Kuforiji, in relation to the 2nd defendant and this is contained in paragraph 7 of the statement of claim. For a better appreciation of the facts and ease of reference, paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 will be set out hereunder.

“4. The plaintiff is the registered owner of the residue of the term of years in the land comprised in Title No. MO 1647 which is hereinafter referred to as “the said property” and which was the subject matter of an agreement made on the 18th day of February, 1971 “Between the plaintiff of the one part and the defendant of the other part.” The agreement is hereinafter referred to as “the aforementioned agreement” and is for the sale and assignment of the said property.

5. Towards the end of 1969, the plaintiff, pursuant to its intention of finding a suitable accommodation for the 2nd defendant, decided to offer to sell the said property to the 2nd defendant at the specially favourable price of N36,00.00 in order to assist her, as a highly valued employee, to secure more suitable and comfortable accommodation near her place of work and from where she can be able to have easy access to the place where she normally performs her duty as employee of the plaintiff company. The plaintiff will rely on the letter dated 1st December, 1969 addressed to the second defendant offering to sell the said property to her.
6. In support of the averment that the amount of N36,000.00 was a specially favourable price, the plaintiff will rely on the fact that on the 12th November, 1969, a firm of Estate Agents (Las & Co. Ltd.) made an offer on behalf of one of their clients to purchase the said property for N44,000.00.
7. Thereafter, the 2nd defendant orally and falsely represented to the plaintiff that the 1st defendant and herself were husband and wife and both defendants confirmed the said representation in the description they gave themselves in the afore-mentioned agreement which was prepared by a legal practitioner of their choice.
8. By reason of the said representation, the plaintiff was induced to agree to continue the negotiation for the sale of the said property to the 1st and 2nd defendants jointly on the very favourable terms originally meant for the 2nd defendant alone.
9. In the alternative to paragraph 8, the plaintiff aver that at all material times and by reason of the said representation, it acted under the terms of the aforementioned agreement.

Particulars of Mistake

(a) The Plaintiff thought that it was entering into a contract with the second defendant and her husband whilst in fact the plaintiff was entering into a contract with the second defendant and the man whose marriage to another woman, Phebean Yetunde Kuforiji (nee Majekodunmi) remains valid and substiting. (Underlining is mine.)

(b) In support of paragraph (a) hereof, the plaintiff will rely on marriage certificate No. WD/111940 issued by the County Borough of West Ham, London, England on the 26th of December, 1958.