Sir E. N. Ejiofor V. Christian Okafor & Ors (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MIKA’ILU, J.C.A.

A suit No. 0/241/2000 was instituted at the High Court of Anambra State, in the Onitsha Judicial Division by one Christian Okafor, now the 1st respondent, for himself and on behalf of the estate of Mrs. Ugonwa Okafor (now deceased) against one Sir E. N. Ejiofor, the 1st respondent and three others. As per para. 5 of their statement of claim, their claim against the defendants jointly and severally was as follows:-

“(a) A declaration that the attachment and sale of Volvo Car with registration number AR820 UWN belonging to Mrs. Ugonwa Okafor (deceased) was wrongful in law, void and of no effect whatsoever.

(b) An order setting aside the said sale.

(c) Return to the plaintiff of the said Car (if still in good condition and repair as it was before the attachment and sale) or, in the alternative, payment to the plaintiff of the current market value of the Car as assessed.

(d) N2,000,000 (Two million Naira) general damages for wrongful execution and sale of the said vehicle.”

Only the 1st defendant at the High Court defended the suit.

It is to be noted that the said Volvo Car was attached and sold in the execution of a valid judgment of the High Court. Onitsha in suit No. 0/409/97 between the appellant as the plaintiff and one Nathan Okafor, the husband of Ugonwa Okafor. The said Volvo Car was sold by public auction by the Deputy Sheriff of the High Court.

Onitsha to one Ugoabata Ezegbelu.

The High Court at the close of the cases of the parties and final address of their solicitors entered judgment in the case in favour of the 1st respondent, the plaintiff in the suit.

The 1st defendant. Sir E. N. Ejiofor, the only defendant who defended the suit was aggrieved and therefore filed their appeal.

Before this court, briefs have been filed and exchanged. In the appellant’s brief of argument four issues have been formulated for determination. They are as follows:

(i) Whether exhibits P1 – P7 were admitted by the High Court.

(ii) Whether the High Court was right in treating exhibits P1 to P7 as proof of their content and according them Probative value.