Universal Vulcanizing (Nig.) Ltd. V. Ijesha United Trading & Transport & Ors. (1992)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OMO, J.S.C. 

The claim of the plaintiff/appellant in the High Court of Kwara State (Ilorin Division), as set out in his Statement of Claim, against defendants/respondents jointly and severally is as follows:-

(i) an order for specific performance of the sale agreement between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant;

(ii) a perpetual injunction prohibiting the 7 defendants, their servants and/or agents from further trespassing on, or dealing with the said property;

(iii) a declaration that the purported assignment of the same property to the 5th defendant as per Deed of Assignment dated 10th December. 1984, is null and void and of no effect whatsoever and the setting aside of the aforesaid Deed of Assignment.”

The 1st, 4th and 5th defendants in addition to filing a joint Statement of Defence also counter-claimed jointly against the plaintiff as follows:-

“(a) That plaintiff vacate the said property immediately.

(b) Perpetual injunction against the plaintiff from further trespass.

(c) A declaration that plaintiff has bought nothing in equity; that there was no valid agreement or contract and that all its alleged acts did not go beyond negotiation.

(d) N 10.000.00 for special and general damages against the plaintiff in favour of the 1st, 4th and 5th defendants.

(i) N60.000.00 for special damage – as estimated cost of reconverting the building which plaintiff had altered the structures.

(ii) N50,000.00 as general damages in favour of 1st, 4th and 5th defendants for breaking their close and debarring 5th defendant from occupying the property which was lawfully assigned to it.”‘

Pleadings were duly filed and exchanged. At the hearing the evidence in support of the case of the parties and addresses by their counsel were heard: after which judgment was reserved.

In his judgment the learned High Court Judge dismissed the plaintiff/appellant’s claim in its entirety. He held that the plaintiff/appellant did not have an enforceable contract mainly on the ground that there was no authority given to the 2nd defendant/respondent to sell the property to him. All he did, in any event, amounted to no more than negotiations which is subject to confirmation of the Board of Directors of the 1st plaintiff/appellant. He proceeded to allow the first three claims (a, b, c) of the counter-claim, and refused to grant the counterclaimants any damages for trespass only on the ground that no evidence had been led on which such damages would be grounded.