CASE TITLE: MUSTAPHA v. HANGA & ANOR (2023) LPELR-60199(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 3RD APRIL, 2023
PRACTICE AREA: CONTRACT
LEAD JUDGMENT: ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on civil procedure.
FACTS:
This appeal is against the judgment of the Kano State High Court in Suit No. K/440/2012, delivered on 13th May, 2016, by Hon. Justice A.T. Badamasi.
At the trial Court, the Respondent sought the following reliefs:
(1) A declaration that the Plaintiff, having made substantial part payment of N40,000,000 out of N50,000,000.00 leaving the balance of N10,000,000.00 which has been and is ready and willing to pay, but for the frustrating conduct of the 1st Defendant, is the rightful owner of the portion of sub-division of the No. 20 Sokoto Road Nasarawa GRA, Kano.
(2) A declaration that the refusal by the 1st Defendant to accept the agreed balance of N10,000,000.00 from Plaintiff and thereby execute a deed of assignment in Plaintiff’s favour is a breach or frustration of the oral conduct of the sale.
(3) An order of specific performance of the contract of sale directing the 1st Defendant to collect the balance of N10,000,000.00 from Plaintiff and consequently, execute a deed of assignment transferring ownership of the sub-divided portion of land known as No. 20 Sokoto Road Nasarawa GRA, Kano to the Plaintiff.
(4) An Order directing the Defendants to surrender all the title documents and vacant possession of the sub-divided portion of land to the Plaintiff.
(5) An Order of Perpetual injunction, restraining the Defendants, jointly and severally, by themselves, their servants, their agents, their privies, their representatives or by whosoever or howsoever name they are called/described from selling, alienating or transferring/assigning title in and over the portion of land bought by the Plaintiff from the 1st Defendant to any person(s).
(6) N5m General damages for the breach and frustration of the contract of sale.
(7) Cost of this action.
The 1st Defendant/Appellant had filed an Amended Statement of Defence to defend the suit and raised a counter-claim. After hearing the parties and witnesses, and considering the evidence and addresses of Counsel, the trial Court entered judgment for Plaintiff/1st Respondent and granted his reliefs. Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.
The respondents filed a preliminary objection, challenging the competence of the appeal.
ISSUES:
The Court considered the merits of the preliminary objection on the grounds the notice of appeal is incompetent, having been filed without leave of the Court. The appeal was also considered on the merits.
DECISION/HELD:
The preliminary objection was upheld and the appeal was struck out. On the merits, the appeal failed.
RATIOS:
Go to primsol.lawpavilion.com to read the full judgment.
Introduction The legal profession has always been known for its high standards and unique demands,…
CASE TITLE: UNITY BANK PLC v. ALONGE (2024) LPELR-61898(CA) JUDGMENT DATE: 4TH APRIL, 2024 JUSTICES:…
CASE TITLE: ODIONYE v. FRN (2024) LPELR-62923(CA) JUDGMENT DATE: 5TH SEPTEMBER, 2024 PRACTICE AREA: CRIMINAL LAW…
CASE TITLE: EFFIONG v. MOBIL PRODUCING (NIG.) UNLTD (2024) LPELR-62930(CA)JUDGMENT DATE: 27TH SEPTEMBER, 2024PRACTICE AREA:…
CASE TITLE: ONWUSOR v. STATE (2024) LPELR-63031(CA) JUDGMENT DATE: 12TH NOVEMBER, 2024 PRACTICE AREA: CRIMINAL…
By Femi Falana SAN Introduction Last week, President Bola Tinubu ordered the immediate termination of…