Whether Differences Between a Person’s Signatures on Two Documents Mean That the Signatures Were Not Made by the Same Person

CASE TITLE: AMOBI v. NZEOWU & ORS (2025) LPELR-82651(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 15TH DECEMBER, 2025

PRACTICE AREA: EVIDENCE

LEAD JUDGMENT: UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on Land Law.

FACTS:

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Lagos State High Court sitting at Lagos Judicial Division delivered by HON. JUSTICE O. O. OKE on the 22nd day of April, 2008.

The subject matter of this appeal concerns two landed properties known as No. 147 Ogunlana Drive, Surulere, Lagos State, and Plot 1303A, Akin Adesola Street, Victoria Island, Lagos State. The properties were originally owned by the late Engr. Theophilus Ifeanyi Ofili Nzegwu, who, by two separate Deeds of Assignment both dated 29 July 1996, conveyed the said properties to the original Appellant for a consideration of ₦2,000 in respect of each property. The Appellant’s predecessor-in-title subsequently assigned the property situated at Plot 1303A, Akin Adesola Street, Victoria Island, Lagos State, to a third party, who has since remained in possession and occupation thereof.

The 1st-3rd respondents, who were the Claimants at the trial Court (and surviving spouse and children of the late engineer Theophilus Ifeanyi Ofili Nzegwu, who died intestate on or about 31st October, 1996), brought an action challenging the validity of the sale, amongst other things.

Upon being served with the originating process, the initial Appellant (who died during the pendency of the appeal and was substituted with Chinyelu Amobi) filed a statement of defence.

The trial court entered judgment in favour of the Respondents and nullified the two Deeds of Assignment dated 29 July 1996 relating to the properties at No. 147 Ogunlana Drive, Surulere, Lagos State, and Plot 1303A, Akin Adesola Street, Victoria Island, Lagos State, on the ground that the transactions were tainted by the doctrine of lis pendens or fraud.

Irked by the judgment of the Court below, the Appellant filed this appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court determined the appeal on the following issues:

1. Whether the Lower Court was right in exercising jurisdiction over the suit in view of the signature on the 2nd Amended Statement of Claim?

2. Whether the Respondents had locus standi to institute the action?

3. Whether the Learned Trial Judge was right, or had the powers or jurisdiction, to set aside the Deeds of Assignment dated 29th July, 1996 when the Respondents’ reliefs were in respect of Deeds of Assignment dated 26th July, 1996?

4. Whether the Trial Court rightly set aside the Deeds of Assignment dated 29th July, 1996, on the grounds that the transaction in respect of same was caught up by the doctrine of lis pendens, disobedience of a court’s order, made in bad faith and tainted with fraud?

DECISION/HELD:

The appeal was allowed.

RATIOS:

• ACTION- LOCUS STANDI: What a party must show to establish locus standi; how to determine whether a plaintiff has locus standi
• ACTION- PLEADINGS: Whether when a party is relying on fraud, it must be pleaded and its particulars stated in the pleadings
• APPEAL- APPEAL AGAINST INTERLOCUTORY RULING/FINAL DECISION: Whether an appeal against an interlocutory decision can be incorporated in an appeal against final decision
• CONTRACT- CONSIDERATION: Whether a court has power to query the amount that parties to contract set as consideration
• EVIDENCE- DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: Whether the fact that the signature of a person in one document is different from his signature in another document implies that he is not the author of the two signatures
• EVIDENCE- CONTRADICTION IN EVIDENCE: Position of the law as regards contradictions, discrepancies and inconsistency in evidence

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