CORAM

---

Joseph Olubunmi Kayode Oyewole Justice of the Court of Appeal

Abba Bello Mohammed Justice of the Court of Appeal

Peter Chudi Obiorah Justice of the Court of Appeal

---

PARTIES

---

MR. SOLOMON YACHAM DIKEOCHA

APPELLANTS 

---

1. ALEXANDER O. ONWUCHEKWA

2. FEDERAL CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

3. THE HONOURABLE MINISTER, FCT

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

APPEAL, CONTRACT, EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, PROPERTY AND CONVEYANCING

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

At the trial Court, the 1st Respondent, as Plaintiff had sued the 2nd and 3rd Respondents as well as one Harrison Dikeocha (now deceased) as 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendants, respectively. The said Harrison Dikeocha (now deceased) and the 1st Respondent were employees of the Federal Government of Nigeria deployed to the Federal Ministry of Health, Abuja. Harrison Dikeocha (now deceased) and the 1st Respondent were initially allocated 1 Bedroom each in a 2-Bedroom Flat known as Block C, Flat 2, Ministry of Health Quarters, Kubwa, FCT, Abuja vide letters of allocation which were tendered in evidence as Exhibits 1 and D2. However, Harrison Dikeocha was later posted out of the Federal Ministry of Health to the Federal Inland Revenue Service, and deployed to its Kaduna Office in 2001.

​When the Federal Government embarked on the sale of Federal Government Houses dispute arose between the Harrison Dikeocha (now deceased) and the 1st Respondent over who is the rightful person entitled to purchase the property.

The 1st Respondent (as Plaintiff) instituted the action before the trial Court challenging the sale of the property by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents to Harrison Dikeocha [now deceased] and claiming the following a declaration that he is the proper person entitled to the purchase of all that 2-Bedroom Flat known as Block C, Flat 2, Ministry of Health Quarters, Phase 4, Kubwa, Abuja as one among other reliefs sought.

The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja (the trial Court), delivered its judgment and order the 3rd Defendant, Harrison Dikeocha (now deceased) to vacate and handover possession of 2 Bedroom Flat known as Block C, Flat 2, Ministry of Health Quarters, Phase 4, Kubwa, Abuja, to allow the Plaintiff, Alexander Onwuchekwa, who is the 1st Respondent herein, to purchase same as the rightful allotee.

Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellant made the instant appeal.

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal dismissed

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether from the evidence adduced before the trial Court, the Appellant has established that he had satisfied the requirements under the guidelines for the Sales of the Federal Government Houses and had duly accepted the offer for the sale of 2-Bedroom Flat known as Block C Flat 2 Ministry of Health Quarters, Phase 4, Kubwa, Abuja, FCT, thereby constituting a valid contract between the Appellant and 2nd and 3rd Respondent?

2. Whether the learned trial Judge has properly evaluated the evidence adduced before him in reaching out his decision?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

CONTRACT – THE ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF A VALID CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT

---

It is elementary law of contract that a valid contractual agreement is made up of: (i) an offer by one party to another; (ii) an unqualified acceptance by that other; (iii) a consideration; (iv) an intention by the parties to create a legal relationship between them; and (v) the capacity of the parties to contract. See:NNPC v FUNG TAI ENGINEERING CO. LTD (2023) LPELR-59745(SC) at 76, paras. C – F; and INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF ROH EMPIRE MISSION v OPARA (2017) LPELR-42463(CA) at 27 – 28, paras. D – B. All these ingredients must co-exist. – Per A. B. Mohammed, JCA

 

---

EVIDENCE – CONDUCT OF COURTS WHERE THERE IS ORAL AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

---

The law is settled that where there is oral and documentary evidence, the Court is enjoined to use the latter as a hangar to test the veracity of the former: MILITARY GOV. OF LAGOS STATE & ORS v ADEYIGA & ORS (2012) LPELR-7836(SC) at 55, paras. B – C; JINADU & ORS v ESUROMBI-ARO & ANOR (2009) LPELR-1614(SC) at 32, paras. D – E; and KIMDEY & ORS v MILITARY GOVERNOR OF GONGOLA STATE & ORS (1988) LPELR-1692(SC) at 54, paras. A – B. – Per A. B. Mohammed, JCA

 

---

ADMISSION – WHERE ADMISSION AGAINST INTEREST IS ELICITED FROM AN OPPONENT

---

It is trite that an admission against interest elicited from an opponent which is fatal is the best evidence in proof of a fact against that opponent. See: ABALAKA v AKINSETE & ORS (2023) LPELR-60349(SC) at 26 – 27, paras. F – B; and OKEMIRI & ORS v CHUKWUEKE (2016) LPELR-40983 (CA) at 23 – 24, paras. B – C. – Per A. B. Mohammed, JCA

 

---

COURTS – DUTY OF TRIAL COURTS REGARDING EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – CONDUCT OF APPELLATE COURTS TO FINDINGS OF FACTS BY TRIAL COURTS – DUTY OF AN APPELLANT CHALLENGING THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT

---

It is trite that a trial Court, before which evidence is led, has the primary duty of evaluating the evidence and ascribing probative value thereto. This is because a trial Court has the advantage of seeing, hearing and observing the demeanour of the witnesses who testify before it and is therefore, in a better position to assess their credibility. See: EDWIN v STATE (2019) LPELR-46896(SC), per Muhammad, JSC at page 28, para. C; and OKEOWO v A.G. OF OGUN STATE (2010) LPELR-2442(SC), per Onnoghen, JSC (as he then was) at pages 6 – 7, para. E. Thus, an appellate Court will not ordinarily interfere with findings of fact by the trial Court unless it is shown that the trial Court failed to properly evaluate the evidence before it or its findings thereon is perverse and this has occasioned miscarriage of justice. See:BELLO v FRN (2018) LPELR-44465(SC), per Bage, JSC at pages 13 – 17, para. A; and IGBI & ANOR v STATE (2000) LPELR-1444(SC), per Ayoola, JSC at pages 14 – 15, para. E. Therefore, an Appellant, such as the one herein, who challenges the decision of the trial Court, has the burden of not only establishing impropriety or perverseness in the decision challenged, but of also establishing miscarriage of justice. See: KIWO v STATE (2020) LPELR-53900(SC), per Muhammad, JSC at page 30, para. D; and AMADI v A.G. IMO STATE (2017) LPELR-42013(SC), per Eko, JSC at page 12, para. B. – Per A. B. Mohammed, JCA

 

---

MISTAKE/ERROR – CONDUCT OF APPELLATE COURTS TO MISTAKES AND ERRORS BY TRIAL COURTS

---

It is not every error or mistake made by a lower Court that will result in its judgment being set aside on appeal. For an error or mistake to warrant setting aside the judgment of a Court, it must be shown to be substantial as to occasion miscarriage of justice. See:TSOKWA MOTORS (NIG) LTD v UBA PLC (2008) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1071) 347; ABUBAKAR v BEBEJI OIL & ALLIED PRODUCTS LTD (2007) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1066) 319; and KRAUS THOMPSON ORGANISATION LTD v UNIVERSITY OF CALABAR (2004) 9 NWLR (Pt. 879) 631. – Per A. B. Mohammed, JCA

 

---

ADMISSION – WHERE A PARTY ADMITS AGAINST HIS INTEREST

---

As stated earlier, an admission by a party against his interest is the best evidence in favour of his adversary. See ONYENGE VS. EBERE (2004) 13 NWLR (PT. 899) 20; KAMALU VS. UMUNNA (1997) 5 NWLR (PT. 505) and AJIDE VS. KELANI (1985) 3 NWLR (PT 12) 248. The admission by Harrison Dikeocha of non-deduction of rent was fatal to his case. It has vindicated the claim of the Respondent that he was the one who had the right of first refusal and not Harrison Dikeocha who had failed to fulfill the condition precedent to having a right of first refusal, having not fulfilled the preconditions stated in Clause 12 of the Guidelines for Sale of Federal Government Houses. See: ODUTOLA v PAPERSACK (NIG) LTD. (2006) 11-12 SC 60; ONYENGE v EBERE (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt. 899) 20; and ALI v UBA PLC (2014) LPELR-22635(CA) at 33, paras. D-F. – Per A. B. Mohammed, JCA

 

---

APPELLANT – WHERE THE APPELLANT FAILS TO ESTABLISH ANY IMPROPRIETY IN THE LEARNED TRIAL JUDGE’S EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE

---

From all the foregoing, it is clear that the Appellant has failed to establish any impropriety in the learned trial Judge’s evaluation of evidence which has occasioned a miscarriage of justice. Hence, it is not the premise of this Court to interfere: BELLO v FRN (supra): and IGBI & ANOR v STATE (supra). – Per A. B. Mohammed, JCA

 

---

STANDARD OF PROOF – STANDARD OF PROOF IN CIVIL CASES

---

Civil cases are determined on preponderance of evidence with the imaginary scale tilting in favour of the party with the more credible evidence. SeeELIAS VS OMO-BARE 1982 5 SC. 25. – Per J.O. K. Oyewole, JCA

 

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Guidelines for Sale of Federal Government Houses

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT