CORAM
ONYEAMA, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
W.T EJUETAMI APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
Respondent as plaintiff sued to take possession of the whole dwelling house situate at No. 38 Oba Akran Avenue, Ikeja. The Appellant also filled a counterclaim.?
HELD
The Appeal dismissed judgment of the lower court affirmed
ISSUES
Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the Defendant/Respondent had an equity prior in time having regard to the pleadings of their parties and the evidence.Whether the Plaintiff could be said to be guilty of such fraud against the 1st Defendant as to deprive him of the benefit of his prior equitable interest in the property in dispute.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CASES CITED
See Bronik Motors Ltd. v. Wema Bank Ltd. Burgess v. Cox. (1951) Ch.D 383 at 388?
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Section 5(2) of the Law Reform (Contract) LawSection 212 of the 1979 Constitution,Section 4 of the Statute of Fraud Act 1677 of EnglandSection 40 of the Law of Property Act 1925.