CORAM

---

AYOBODE OLUJIMI LOKULO-SODIPE, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

ITA GEORGE MBABA, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

TUNDE OYEBANJI AWOTOYE, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

---

PARTIES

---

INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF ROH EMPIRE MISSION

APPELLANTS 

---

MR. WILFRED O. OPARA

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

APPEAL, LANDLORD AND TENANT, LAW OF CONTRACT, LAW OF EVIDENCE, LOCUS STANDI, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, WORDS AND PHRASES

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant commenced this action in respect of Plots 192/2000 Ikenegbu Layout Extension before the Imo State High Court against the Respondent vide a Writ of Summons and an Amended Statement of claim wherein the Appellant sought for Sum of N6,809,919.00 (Six Million Eight Hundred and Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Nineteen Naira) for unlawfully breaking into the premises in peaceful possession of the Appellant, destruction and carting away of the Appellant’s property, an Order of specific performance or damages. The case of the Appellant was that he was a tenant of the Respondent and using the premises for religious purposes, but later their relationship suffered friction, leading to accumulation of rents, and an attempt by the Respondent to eject the Appellant forcefully. That it later discovered that the Respondent wanted to sell the property and approached the Respondent, offering to buy it. That the Respondent agreed to sell to the Appellant on the condition that Appellant cleared the arrears of rent. The Appellant, therefore, raised the sum of Sixty Nine Thousand Naira (N69, 000.00) to clear the accumulated arrears of rents covering January 2001 to December 2001 and January 2002 to November 2002. That even though the parties had agreed on the purchase price, to which it has written out a cheque and prepared a Power of Attorney for execution by the Respondent, that the Respondent decided to sell to a third party and not the Appellant, hence it commencing this action. In his defence, the Respondent stated that the Appellant, through one Evangelist Dr. Kabiru K. De-Gaya, rented the premises, but breached the terms of the tenancy and erected permanent structures on the land using steel and blocks, refused to pay the rent of N2000.00 per month, despite series of demands; he said that he gave Appellant ample time to give up possession of the premises to the Respondent, but he (Appellant) refused to comply with the demands; that he (Respondent) instructed his lawyer to issue appropriate statutory Notices to the said Dr. De-Gaya, which was done and yet he refused to vacate the premises so he filed a case of recovery of possession against the said Dr. De-Gaya at the Magistrates Court, and while that case was still pending, Dr. De-Gaya, through the Appellant, instituted this action at the High Court alleging all sorts of unfounded claims; that the said Dr. De-Gaya and his church went to the extent of applying to the Ministry of Lands, Survey and Urban Planning, Owerri, for a grant of statutory right of occupancy over the said land; so, he (Respondent) entered a caveat against the application, and Dr. De-Gaya and his church, proceeded to make malicious complaints to the Police against him, which complaints were discovered to be false by the Police. He stated that he did not and does not intend to sell his property; he never advertised the property for sale and never discussed any sale of the property with Dr. De-Gaya, his church and/or with any of his agents. That the Power of Attorney and Cheque were mere fabrications of the Appellant, for the purpose of the action. He never applied any form of violence to recover the property. At the end of the trial, the trial Court dismissed the claim of the Appellant, holding that the case was frivolous, vexatious and an attempt by the Appellant to deprive the Respondent of the right to taking back his land; and that Appellant had no locus standi to institute the action. Aggrieved, the Appellant had appealed the judgment of the trial Court vide a Notice of Appeal containing ten Grounds of Appeal.

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the trial Court was right when it held that Appellant had no locus standi to bring the Suit and thereby dismissed the Suit.

2. Whether the trial Court was right when it held that the Appellant failed to prove that the Respondent unlawfully destroyed and carted away the Appellants properties.

3. Whether the trial Court was right when it held that there was no enforceable/binding contract between the Appellant and the Respondent for the sale of the land, and therefore none was breached by the Respondent to entitle the Appellant to an Order for specific performance or for specific damages

 

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

LOCUS STANDI – A STRANGER TO A TRANSACTION HAS NO LOCUS STANDI TO SUE

---

“Thus, Respondent, having denied knowing the Appellant in relation to Exhibit A24/D1 (tenancy agreement), and having not been served with notice of transition of Dr. Degayas religious body in the Agreement, to the Appellant, to take the benefit of the tenancy agreement, and the said Dr. Degaya, having not been joined in the Suit, or called to give evidence to establish the missing link(s), Appellant cannot, in my opinion, invoke the rights inherent in the tenancy contract, being a stranger to the transaction, and so had no locus standi to institute the action, in its sole name (without joining the said Evangelist K.K. Degaya). See The Vessel Leona II Vs First Fuels Ltd (2002) LPELR  1284 SC; LSDPC & Anor. Vs Nigerian Land & Sea Foods Ltd(1992) LPELR. SC. 98/89; Dumlop Preumatic Tyre Co. Ltd Vs Selfridges & Co. Ltd (1915) AC. 847; Rebold Industries Ltd Vs Magreola & Ors (2015) LPELR  24612 SC”.- PER I. G. MBABA, J.C.A

 

---

ORDER OF SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE – INSTANCE WHEN AN ORDER OF SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE CAN BE MADE

---

“An Order of specific performance can only be made to enforce existing valid contract, where there is attempt to rescind or evade ones duty in the contract. See NCI Ltd Vs UACN Property Dev. Co. Plc (2016) LPELR 41426 (CA); LSDPC Vs NL & SF Ltd (1992) LPELR  1744 SC; Nwachukwu Vs Okaelu (2015) LPELR  24276 (CA); Ohaeri Vs Yusuf & Ors (2009) LPELR  2361 (SC). – PER I. G. MBABA, J.C.A

 

---

CONTRACT – MEANING OF A CONTRACT AND THE ESSENTIALS ELEMENTS OF A VALID CONTRACT

---

“A contract is a legally binding agreement between two or more persons, by which right are acquired by the party, in return for acts or forbearance, on the part of the other. It is a bilateral affair, which requires consensus ad idem of the parties. See Odutola vs Papersack Nig Ltd (2006) 18 NWLR (pt 1012) 470; Orient Bank (Nig) Plc vs Bilante Intl Ltd (1997) 8 NWLR (PT.515) 37; Ashaka vs Nwachukwu (2013) LPELR- 20272 (CA). See also Alfa System Com. Ltd & Ors vs Keji Orisajimi & Ors (2016) LPELR  40295 (CA), on the five essentials of a valid contract, namely, offer, acceptance, consideration, intention to create legal relationship and capacity to contract, and all the five ingredients must co-exist, before a valid contract can exist. Okubule vs Oyagbola (1990) 4 NWLR (pt.147) 723. Amana Suite and Hotel Ltd vs PDP (2007)6 NWLR (pt.1031) 453”. – PER I. G. MBABA, J.C.A

 

---

CONTRADICTION IN EVIDENCE – NATURE OF CONTRADICTION IN THE EVIDENCE OF WITNESSES THAT CAN VITIATE SUCH EVIDENCE

---

“However, I think the trial Court was wrong to hold that the evidence by PW1 and PW2 contradicted each other, on how the report was made to the Police. Whether the report was made to the State CID, Owerri, or to the Commissioner of Police, Imo State, directly, should not, in my opinion, be an issue, because the report still goes to the Police in Imo State, and the Commissioner of Police is in charge of all the Police departments/units in the State. Such a discrepancy in evidence is not substantial contradiction to vitiate an evidence Fatoba Vs Ogundahunsi (2003) 11 WRN 56 at 74 – 82”. – PER I. G. MBABA, J.C.A

 

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Evidence Act, 2011

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT