CORAM

---

IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE

CORDELIA IFEOMA JOMBO-OFO

MUSLIM SULE HASSAN

---

PARTIES

---

MRS. JULIANA ANJA

APPELLANTS 

---

PRINCE ABAGI SAMUEL YONOVKAA

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

 APPEAL, LAND LAW, LAW OF CONTRACT, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Claimant/1st Respondent at the court of first instance claimed he bought a property lying at Aliade North Benue state from the 1st Defendant/Appellant. The 1st Defendant/Appellant prior to the lease informed the Claimant/1st Respondent that she leased the property to the 2nd Defendant/2nd Respondent and the 2nd Defendant/2nd Respondent has erected a Base Transceiver Station BTS on the said plot, and that the lease was for 5 years and same will lapse in March, 2012. That since the expiration of the lease between the 1st Defendant/Appellant and the 2nd Defendant/2nd Respondent, she had refused to introduce the Claimant/1st Respondent to the 2nd Defendant/2nd Respondent as the new landlord, and the Claimant/1st Respondent being the new owner of the plot is kept in the dark of what transpired regarding the lease since April, 2012 till the filing of the suit in April, 2013. It was later claimed by the 2nd Defendant/2nd Respondent that the lease for 5years has been renewed and payment has been made to the 1st Defendant/Appellant without informing the Claimant/1st Respondent who is now the new owner of the property. The 1st Defendant/Appellant denied the claims of the Claimant/1st Respondent in its entirety and stated that she did not sell the property to the Claimant/1st Respondent but that she only borrowed monies from the Claimant/1st Respondent to which she pledge her C of O to the property and handed same over to the Claimant/1st  Respondent. That she has been making frantic efforts to redeem the loan but the Claimant/1st Respondent is not willing to accept any refund of the debt she owned him due to his desire to take over the property, and that she is not aware that Claimant/1st Respondent had written to the 2nd Defendant/2nd Respondent as the new owner of her property. The trial Court at the conclusion of trial, held in favour of the Claimant/1st Respondent and dismissed the counter claim of the 1st Defendant/Appellant. Aggrieved with the decision of the Trial Court, the Defendant/Appellant has appealed to the Court of Appeal for redress.

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

 

---

ISSUES

---

Whether or not the 1st Respondent who relied on the purchase of land in dispute by tendering Exhibit B1 (handwritten acknowledgment of receipt of money) has discharged the burden placed on him in proof of title to land and thus entitled to the grant of the reliefs claimed before the lower court. (Distilled from ground 3).

Whether or not the learned trial judge was right to hold that the transaction between the appellant and the 1st respondent was an outright sale and not a pledge in view of the evidence before the court. (Distilled from grounds 2 and 4).

Whether or not the learned trial judge properly considered and evaluated the evidence on record to warrant his decision to enter judgment for the 1st respondent against the appellant and 2nd respondent. (Distilled from grounds 1, 5 and 6).

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

TITLE TO LAND- WHETHER THE FAILURE TO OBTAIN GOVERNOR’S CONSENT IS A YARDSTICK TO VIATIATE THE SALE OF LAND

---

“The law is settled that issues of registration and seeking of governor’s consent cannot be used as a yardstick by a person who sold his land to vitiate the sale, and the seller like the Appellant herein have a corresponding duty in law to ensure that all this procedures are duly followed with. Where it is not done, as in the instant case, the Appellant cannot benefit from that. See the authority of Sosan v. H.F.P Engineering Nig Ltd (2003) LPELR 7232, Pp 36 -38, Paras B – F where the Court of Appeal had this to say on this issue:

“S. 22 of the Land Use Act provides:- “It shall not be lawful for the holder of a statutory right of occupancy granted by the Governor to alienate his right of occupancy or any part thereof by assignment, mortgage, transfer of possession, sublease or otherwise howsoever without the consent of the Governor first had and obtained.” S. 26 of the same Act further provides- “Any transaction or any instrument which purports to confer on or vest in any person any interest or right over land other than in accordance with the provisions of this Act shall be null and void.” The foregoing provisions are undoubtedly clear in their meaning. In the instant case, it had ceased to be an issue that the necessary consent of the Governor had not been obtained. Appellant has in a very unimpressive manner argued that it was respondent’s duty to acquire the necessary consent and failure to have so acquired the required consent must disentitle the latter to the benefit of a transaction so cultivated. An apparent good talk. The respondent, both by pleadings and uncontroverted evidence particularly of DW1, has debunked the appellant’s assertion of having fulfilled his side of the bargain. On the authority of Savannah Bank (Nig.) Ltd. v. Ajilo (1989) 1 NLWR (Pt.97) 305, appellant has asked that Exhibit B, the sublease sought to be created without the consent of the Governor be declared null and void. This, for two reasons, seems tempting indeed. Firstly, there is the general rule that in Court’s interpretative duty clear and unambiguous words must be assigned their ordinary meaning. Secondly, the lower Court was bound by the rule of stare decisis. A Superior Court had in a similar situation apparently declared a transaction void. The instant appeal does bring into focus the helplessness of parties who having enjoyed benefits from an illegal transaction seek to plead the very fact of the illegality to get away with unlawfully derived benefits. Public policy demands that such persons are disallowed from raising, because of the clear words of the relevant statutes, the omission in an otherwise lawful transaction. The Supreme Court in Ugochukwu v. Coop. & Commercial Bank Ltd. (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 456) 524 at 540, has held that it is the duty of the holder of the right of occupancy sought to be dismissed to seek the necessary consent of the Governor to transfer same. Further applying its decision in Solanke v. Abed (1962) 1 SCNLR 371 and Oil Field Supply Centre v. Johnson (1987) 2 NWLR (Pt. 58) 625, the Apex Court had also resolved that it is not for the likes of the appellant in the instant appeal to be heard, having benefited from an otherwise lawful transaction, to say that a sublease be declared void because necessary consent had not been obtained. The trial Court and, given S. 16 of the Court of Appeal Act, this Court as well, are all bound by the foregoing decisions. This is one moment because of the facts of the instant case where public policy demands that Court tarry very much from giving effect to the clear and unambiguous words which constitute a statute.”

-PER M.S. HASSAN, J.C.A

 

---

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – WHETHER THE CONTENT OF A DOCUMENT CAN BE ALTERED BY ORAL EVIDENCE

---

“I want to state categorically that it is settled law beyond argument that the content of a document cannot be varied or altered by the oral evidence of a party, therefore I shall look at the documents in EXH B1 and EXH B2 as they are having regards to all the legal submissions of counsel on this issue as I resolve same.” PER M.S. HASSAN, J.C.A

 

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Benue State Land Instrument Law Cap 87, Laws of Benue State 2004

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT