CORAM

MUHAMMAD S. MUNTAKA COOMASSI, JUSTICE. SUPREME COURT

OGUNDARE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

BELGORE,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

S.O. ONU,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

ALHAJI BANMIDELE LAWAL APPELLANTS

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellant and the 2nd respondent used their properties to facilitate a loan on behalf of the 3rd respondent from the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent successfully obtained judgment against the 2nd and 3rd respondents. The appellant got an injunction stopping the sale of his property; he won in the High Court, lost in the court below and being dissatisfied with the decision, appealed to this court.

HELD

Appeal dismissed.

ISSUES

Whether the Court of Appeal was right in disturbing the finding of the trial court that the 1st respondent accepted the arrangement contained in Exhibit 14:Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the trial court did not properly apply the doctrine of estoppel and waiver to the facts of the case;Whether the Court of Appeal was right in reversing the decision of the trial court on, whether in the circumstances of the case, the appellant proved his case on a balance of probability in view of the fact that the 1st respondent did not adduce any evidence.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

CASES CITED

Sulaiman & Bros. v. Haus Mehr of Hamburg (1957) 2 FSC. 60 Odunsi v. Boulos: (1959) 4 FSC. 234Commissioner for Works & Housing v. Lababedi & ors. (1977) 11 – 12 S.C. 15Chief Ebba v. Chief Ogodo & or. (1984) 4 S.C. 84Tika-Tore Press Ltd. v. Abina & ors. (1973) 12 S.C. 79 at 91-94.Caroline Morayo v. Okiade & ors.(1940) 8 W A.C.A. 46.Cross River State Newspapers Corporation v. Oni & Ors. (1995) 1 NWLR (Pt.371) 270);British & French Bank Ltd. v. Solel-El-Asad (1967) N.M.L.R 40 Kehinde v. Ogunbunmi & ors. (1968) N.M.L.R. 37.

STATUTES REFERRED TO

None.

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT