YUSUF SALEH (ALIAS SUPERSTAR) V. THE STATE
March 3, 2025EDET EDET JOHN V. THE STATE
March 3, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2024-06) Legalpedia 36276 (CA)
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT YOLA
Fri Jun 28, 2024
Suit Number: APPEAL NO: CA/YL/41/2021
CORAM
JUSTICE, ITA.G. MBABA (PJ), OFR,JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL
JUSTICE, PATRICIA A. MAHMOUD,JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL
HON. JUSTICE, PETER O. AFFEN,JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL
PARTIES
1. JUDE BABAYARO
2. MADAM STAINLESS
APPELLANTS
HON. DANJUMA M. K
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SALE OF GOODS, CONTRACT LAW, PROPERTY LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE LAW, EQUITY AND TRUSTS
SUMMARY OF FACTS
This case originated from the Adamawa State High Court decision (Suit No. ADSY/100/2017) delivered on November 9, 2020. The dispute centered on the ownership of Shop No. F064 at the Jimeta Ultra-Modern Market, Yola. The Respondent (Plaintiff) claimed ownership through a purchase from the 1st Appellant for N1.5 million, evidenced by a sale agreement dated August 29, 2013. The 2nd Appellant (who was a tenant in the shop) also claimed ownership through a purported sale by the 1st Appellant on August 30, 2013. The 1st Appellant denied selling to the Respondent, claiming he only signed as a witness to a loan agreement. The trial court found in favor of the Respondent, declaring him the rightful owner and ordering the Appellants to hand over the shop.
HELD
1. The appeal was dismissed.
2. The Court affirmed that the Respondent had valid title to the shop, having been the first to pay consideration and obtain a valid sale agreement.
3. The Court found no merit in the Appellants’ claims of fraud or forgery regarding the sale agreement (Exhibit B).
4. The Court awarded costs of N200,000 against the 1st Appellant.
ISSUES
1. Whether the learned trial Judge properly evaluated the evidence presented at the trial before concluding that the Appellants are liable to the claims of the Respondent.
2. Whether the learned trial Judge was in grave error of law to have found that the Appellants did not plead fraud and therefore declined to pronounce on the authenticity of Exhibit C.
3. Whether having due regards to the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge was right to have failed to resort to the rule of failed consideration under the Sale of Goods Act, 1893.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
EVALUATION OF COMPETING CLAIMS TO PROPERTY – DETERMINATION OF SUPERIOR TITLE
“They both traced their root of title to one person i.e. the 1st Defendant. The question to consider therefore is, who as between the Plaintiff and 2nd Defendant has a better title. I think this question answers all the formulated issues raised by the parties.” – Per A.A. Waziri, J
VALIDITY OF SALE AGREEMENT – ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF CONTRACT
“I therefore hold that these aforementioned elements have presented themselves in the instant case. I find and hold that there was a valid contract between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant in respect of Shop No. F 064. It is too late in the day for the 1st Defendant to resile from it.” – Per A.A. Waziri, J
PRIORITY OF INTEREST – APPLICATION OF EQUITABLE MAXIMS
The title of Shop No. F 064 is earlier in time to the Plaintiff having acquired same on the 29/8/2013 while the 2nd Defendant’s title was acquired much later on the 30/8/2013.” – Per A.A. Waziri, J
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE – VARIATION OF WRITTEN AGREEMENTS
“I have carefully scrutinized Exhibit ‘B’ but to my dismay the 1st Defendant’s assertion is far from the truth. In my view what he signed is the Sales Agreement in respect of Shop No. F 064. It is settled principle of law that oral evidence cannot vary the contents of a document more especially in land transaction.” – Per A.A. Waziri, J
EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF
“In the light of the above, my duty here is to put the totality of the testimonies adduced by both parties on an imaginary scale, putting the evidence adduced by both parties on imaginary scale, put the evidence adduced by the Plaintiff on one side of the scale and that of the Defendants on the other side of the scale and weigh them together of which I am able to do.” – Per A.A. Waziri, J
NEMO DAT QUOD NON HABET – APPLICATION TO PROPERTY SALES
“The dispute between the appellant and the 1st respondent raises the equity of priority as well as the principle of nemo dat quod non habet. Both the appellant and 1st respondent claim title to the disputed land through the transactions each of them had with the 2nd respondent.” – Per ITA G. MBABA, JCA
ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENTS – EFFECT OF NON-OBJECTION
“No objection to the admissibility to the agreement, dated 27/8/2013, between the 1st Defendant and the Plaintiff herein, which was witnessed by Sani Baba Ibrahim Audu.” – Per ITA G. MBABA, JCA
CONSIDERATION IN SALE AGREEMENTS – EFFECT OF PART PAYMENT
“The allegation of receipt of N1,400,000.00 by 1st Appellant is immaterial as that appears to be a domestic problem between 1st Appellant and PW1, 1st Appellant having admitted in Exhibit B the consideration of N1,500,000.00 from Respondent!” – Per ITA G. MBABA, JCA
QUI PRIOR EST TEMPORE – PRIORITY OF COMPETING INTERESTS
“Where there are two competing equitable interests, the general rule of equity is that the person whose equity attached to the property first will be entitled to priority over the other. Where the equities are equal and neither claimant has the legal estate, the first in time prevails.” – Per ITA G. MBABA, JCA
APPELLATE INTERVENTION – FINDINGS OF FACT
“I cannot see how the trial Court failed to pronounce on the Exhibits B (or C) as forged document, when it (the Court) had, expressly, made finding that ‘what he (1st Appellant) signed is the Sale Agreement (Exhibit B) in respect of the Shop No. FO64.'” – Per ITA G. MBABA, JCA
PLEADING AND PROOF OF FRAUD – REQUIREMENT FOR PARTICULARS
“The law is trite, that where fraud is alleged, it must be pleaded and proved, beyond reasonable doubt.” – Per ITA G. MBABA, JCA
DOUBLE SALE OF PROPERTY – EFFECT ON TITLE
“At the time the 2nd respondent was purporting to have sold the same piece of land to the appellant, vide Exhibit A, he had no further title to pass to the appellant, having in Exhibit P earlier passed his title and interest in the disputed land to the 1st respondent.” – Per ITA G. MBABA, JCA
COUNTER-CLAIMS IN PROPERTY DISPUTES – BURDEN OF PROOF
“Conversely as the 2nd Defendant is unable to establish her Counter-claim against the Plaintiff by cogent and credible evidence, same must be greeted with a deserved order of dismissed.” – Per A.A. Waziri, J
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Sale of Goods Act, 1893
Adamawa State (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2013
