Position of the Law Where an Offer Requires Acceptance to Be Communicated in a ‘Special Way’

CASE TITLE: DIKEOCHA v. ONWUCHEKWA & ORS (2024) LPELR-61794(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 27TH MARCH, 2024

PRACTICE AREA: LAW OF CONTRACT

LEAD JUDGMENT: ABBA BELLO MOHAMMED, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on contract.

FACTS:

This is an appeal against the final judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja (the trial Court), delivered by Hon. Justice I. U. Bello, on the 6th of March, 2015.

​At the trial Court, the 1st Respondent sued the 2nd and 3rd Respondents as well as one Harrison Dikeocha (now deceased). The deceased and the 1st Respondent were employees of the Federal Government of Nigeria deployed to the Federal Ministry of Health, Abuja. They were initially allocated 1 bedroom each in a 2-bedroom flat known as Block C, Flat 2, Ministry of Health Quarters, Kubwa, FCT, Abuja. However, the deceased was later posted out of the Federal Ministry of Health to the Federal Inland Revenue Service, and deployed to its Kaduna Office in 2001. When the Federal Government embarked on the sale of Federal Government houses, a dispute arose between the deceased and the 1st Respondent over who is the rightful person entitled to purchase the property.

The 1st Respondent instituted the action before the trial Court challenging the sale of the property by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents to the deceased and claimed the following reliefs:

1. A declaration that he is the proper person entitled to the purchase of all that 2-Bedroom Flat known as Block C, Flat 2, Ministry of Health Quarters, Phase 4, Kubwa, Abuja.

2. A declaration that the letter of offer granted him by the 1st Defendant and endorsed by the 2nd Defendant is still valid.

3. A declaration that the 1st Defendant’s action in refusing to accept the Plaintiff’s bank draft dated the 27th day of September, 2005 being 10% of the total value of the property is unlawful, null, and void and of no effect.4. An order of specific performance compelling the 1st and 2nd Defendants to accept the Plaintiff’s bank draft dated 27th September, 2005 and effect the transfer of the property to the Plaintiff in accordance with the modalities for the sale of Government Houses in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja and to recognize the Plaintiff as the rightful allottee of the 2 Bedroom Flat known as Block C, Flat 2, Ministry of Health Quarters, Phase 4, Kubwa, Abuja.

5. An order ejecting the 3rd Respondent or his agents from the said property.

​At the end of trial in which parties called witnesses and tendered documentary exhibits, the trial Court entered judgment for the 1st Respondent and granted his reliefs. Aggrieved with the judgment, appellant lodged this appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court considered:

1. “Whether from the evidence adduced before the trial Court, the Appellant has established that he had satisfied the requirements under the guidelines for the Sales of the Federal Government Houses and had duly accepted the offer for the sale of 2-Bedroom Flat known as Block C Flat 2 Ministry of Health Quarters, Phase 4, Kubwa, Abuja, FCT, thereby constituting a valid contract between the Appellant and 2nd and 3rd Respondent.”

2. “Whether the learned trial Judge has properly evaluated the evidence adduced before him in reaching out his decision.”

DECISION/HELD:

The appeal was dismissed.

RATIOS:

• CONTRACT – VALIDITY OF CONTRACT – Essential ingredients of a valid contract; whether the ingredients must co-exist
• CONTRACT – OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE – Position of the law where an offer requires acceptance to be communicated in a special way
• EVIDENCE – ORAL/DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – The position of the law where there is oral as well as documentary evidence
• EVIDENCE – STANDARD OF PROOF – Standard of proof in civil cases
• EVIDENCE – ADMISSION AGAINST INTEREST – Effect of an admission against interest
• APPEAL – INTERFERENCE WITH EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – Duty of trial Court to evaluate evidence and instance(s) in which an appellate Court will/will not interfere; duty of an appellant who desires an appellate Court to interfere with the evaluation of evidence carried out by the lower Court
• JUDGMENT AND ORDER – ERROR/MISTAKE IN JUDGMENT – Whether every error/mistake in a judgment will result in a judgment being set aside; circumstance where error/mistake in a judgment will result in a judgment being set aside

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol