CORAM

PARTIES

NIGER CLASSIC INVESTMENT LIMITED APPELLANTS

UACN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PLCREGISTRAR OF TITLES, LAGOS STATE? RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Claimant/Appellant by way of originating summons before the Lagos State High Court sought answers to some questions among which are: whether or not a letter of September 20th 2011, written by the 1st Defendant/Respondent  to the Claimant/Appellant listed in the schedule hereunder as 1st letter constituted a valid offer by the 1st Defendant/Respondent  to sell to the Claimant/Appellant, whether or not the request made by the Claimant/Appellant on the telephone to the 1st Defendant/Respondent  on receipt of the said 1st letter to the effect that the offer in respect of 28D should be consolidated with an earlier offer in respect of another unit of the property known as No 28B Glover Road, Ikoyi, Lagos (herein after referred to as 28B), and that the sum of N160, 000,000.00(One Hundred and Sixty Million Naira) already paid for the said 28B be used as down payment for the combined prices of 28B and 28D, constituted a Counter offer by the Claimant/Appellant to the 1st  Defendant. The Claimant/Appellant alternatively sought whether or not by the contents of the 2nd letter, the 1st Defendant made a fresh offer to sell to the Claimant 28D together with the said 28D as single, using the said N160,000,000.00 (One Hundred and sixty Million naira) as a down payment for both among others. It hence sought for injunctive reliefs and mandatory orders. The trial court after due consideration of the questions before it, dismissed the claim hence this appeal.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUES

?    Whether the lower court was right in coming to the decision that there is no binding contract between the Appellant and the 1st Respondent in respect of which a decree of specific performance can be issued in favour of the Appellant in this case.?    Whether the lower court was right in holding that time was of the essence of the contract of sale of the two properties (which is denied), and that there was no waiver of the time as stipulated in Exhibit – AA3 on the undisputed facts of this case.?    Whether the lower court was right in failing to hold that the 1st Respondents letter dated the 20th day of December 2011 is a nullity.?    Whether after having held that Exhibit-AA3 had consolidated the sales of the properties into a single transaction, the lower court did not contradict itself and occasion a miscarriage of justice when it held that the 1st Respondent rightly unilaterally appropriated so much of the payment received towards the purchase of only No. 28 B Glover Road, and that specific performance could not be decreed in respect of No. 28B Glover Road, despite willingness and undertaking by the Appellant to complete the payment for the consolidated sale?    Whether the lower court was wrong and acted without jurisdiction in holding that the 1st Respondent could resile from its contract to sell house 28B Glover road, Ikoyi to the Appellant and that the 2nd Respondent can register any interest, other than the interest of the Appellant, as may be presented.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

None

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT