CORAM

---

HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

MASSOUD ABDULRAHMAN OREDOLA, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI-YUSUF, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

---

PARTIES

---

CHIEF GODWIN UKAH & ORS

APPELLANTS 

---

CHIEF CHRISTOPHER A. ONYIA & ORS

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

APPEAL, COURT, COMMERCIAL LAW, CONTRACT LAW, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, WORDS AND PHRASES

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This is an appeal against the judgment of Hon. Justice B. C. Nosike of the High Court of Enugu State delivered on 24/12/2007 wherein His Lordship gave judgment in favour of the 2nd Respondent against the Appellants for 5% of N 3.5m with interest at the rate of 3% per annum from 24/12/2007 till liquidation of the judgment debt.

The 2nd Respondent who was the Plaintiff at the trial Court is a lawyer who also engages in buying and selling landed property for commission. The 1st Appellant is the Managing Director of the 2nd Appellant – both were the 1st & 2nd Defendants at the trial Court. The 1st Respondent was the 3rd Defendant. In October 2000, on the instruction of one Mr Uchenna Anthony Onaga, a resident of the United States, the 2nd Respondent went in search of a house for sale, and met the 1st Respondent in the course of his search. The 1st Respondent informed the 2nd Respondent that the Appellants had a building to sell at plot 4 otherwise known as No.5 Ogugua Street, Mainland Emene. The 1st Respondent then took the 2nd Respondent to a meeting with the 1st Appellant. The 1st Appellant informed the 1st Respondent that he wanted to sell the property for N3.5m and he was willing to pay 5% commission.

On 16/10/2000, the 1st Respondent gave a photocopy of the deed of assignment belonging to the 2nd Appellant to the 2nd Respondent and told the 2nd Respondent that the 1st Appellant was allegedly prepared to give a 5% commission to whoever secured a buyer for the property. The 2nd Respondent called Mr Anthony Uchenna Onaga who was not interested in the property. The 2nd Respondent went to the property on 19/10/2000 and met one Mr Emmanuel Umahi who lived and operated a restaurant on the premises. The 2nd Respondent told him to find an alternative residence since the property was on the market. On 22/10/2000 Mr Emmanuel Umahi informed the 2nd Respondent that he had a prospective buyer who was his relative, one Mr. John Ibe. Thereafter, the 2nd Respondent told him the conditions of sale of the property and obtained N500 (five hundred Naira) to conduct a search at the Lands Registry. The 2nd Respondent thereafter conducted a search on the property at the Lands Registry and gave the result of the search to Mr John Ibe.

On 23/10/2000, the 2nd Respondent told the 1st Respondent of the development, prepared a deed of assignment for the property and went to the office of the Appellants with the 1st Respondent to hand over the deed and receive payment. The 1st Respondent later informed the 2nd Respondent that the Appellants refused to collect the deed of assignment from him and had sold the property to Mr. John Ibe. The 2nd Respondent got to know that one month’s notice to quit had been issued to Emmanuel Umahi, a tenant on the property by Mr. John Ibe. The 2nd Respondent claimed he never got any remuneration for finding a buyer for the property even though he insisted that the sale was based on the search he had conducted at the Lands Registry. After writing severally to the Appellants for the 5% commission, to no avail, the 2nd Respondent instituted an action at the Enugu State High Court on 12/12/2000 and in the amended statement of claim, asked for 1). the sum equivalent to 5% of N3.5 Million being commission due to the him for the sale of their property at their request; 2). the sum of N100,000 as cost of phone call and transportation he incurred in looking for willing and capable buyers; 3). General damages of N75,000; and 4). interest rate of 22% on judgment figure at bank rate.

The learned trial judge in a considered judgment ordered the Appellants to pay the sum equivalent to 5% of N3.5m with interest at 3% per annum and dismissed all other claims.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court on 24/12/07, the Appellants proceeded with this appeal via a Notice of Appeal on 2/1/2008

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal dismissed

 

---

ISSUES

---

Whether from the totality of the evidence before the trial Court, the learned trial judge was right to hold that the 2nd Respondent was an agent of the Appellants and entitled to commission in the circumstances of this case.

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

“AGENCY” – MEANING AND NATURE OF AGENCY

---

“An agency is a fiduciary relationship said to be created when a person (principal) gives authority to another (agent) to act on his behalf and the agent accepts to act on the authority. The authority may be express or implied. This relationship is usually not determined by the terminology used by the parties to describe their relationship but on the nature of their agreement and the circumstances of the relationship between parties. See Bayero v Mainasara & Sons Ltd (2006) LPELR-7587 CA; (2006) 8 NWLR (Pt. 982) Pg. 391; Upkanah v Ayaya (2010) LPELR-8590 (CA). …

… The idea behind agency is that the law acknowledges that a person does not always need to act in person to change his legal relations. He may either employ the services of another to change them or do something to change them. Ordinarily, the idea is that the agent can affect the principal’s legal position by certain acts which, though performed by the agent, are to be regarded as acts of the principal. See Idowu v Olorunfemi & Ors (2013) LPELR-20728 (CA).” Per OGUNWUMIJU, JCA

 

---

AGENCY – ELEMENTS FOR CREATING AN AGENCY RELATIONSHIP

---

“An agency can be created by any of the following;

Agreement whether formal or not between the parties.

Ratification by the principal of the acts done on his behalf.

Operation of law under the doctrine of necessity.

See Niger Progress Ltd v N.E.L. Corp (1989) NWLR (Pt. 107) 68; (1989) LPELR-1996 (SC) 33; Edem v Canon Balls Ltd & Anor (2005) 12 NWLR (Pt. 938) 27; (2005) LPELR-1007 (SC); (2005) 6 S.C (Pt. II) 16; Ukpanah v Ayaya (Supra).” – Per OGUNWUMIJU, JCA

 

---

CASES CITED

---

NONE

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Legal Practitioner’s Act

Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners

 

---

OTHER CITATIONS