CORAM

---

STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

---

PARTIES

---

SALBODI GROUP LTD

ALHAJI SALIHU MAKAMA

APPELLANTS 

---

DOYIN INVESTMENT NIGERIA LIMITED

DISTINCT SHELTER LIMITED

AYODELE DAVID ADESUA

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

AGENCY, APPEAL, COURT, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF CONTRACT, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant paid to the 1st Respondent, the owner of the property called Zion Court located at No. 171 Adetokunbo Ademola Crescent, Wuse II, Abuja, the sum of N25,000,000.00 and another sum of N5, 00, 000. 00 to the 2nd Respondent on 20th December, 2013 on the management agreement over the said property. As a return on these investments, the 1st Appellant was to be paid the sum of N30,000,000.00 within a period of three months and the sum of N20, 00, 000.00 as profit annually from 2015 – 2018. However, the 2nd Respondent failed to pay to the Appellant the invested sum of N30, 000, 000. 00 as agreed despite repeated demands but paid only the sum of N5, 000, 000. 00 in five instalments. The 2nd Respondent also failed to pay to the Appellant the agreed returns of N20, 000, 000. 00, at the end of the first of the five years agreement period despite repeated demands, which led to the commencement of this action against the Respondents before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, to recover both the N30, 000,000.00 paid to the Respondents and the profit of N80,000,000.00 (from the 2nd and 3rd Respondents, amongst other reliefs. On the part of the Respondents, their case was that the 1st Respondent executed an initial five years tenancy with the 2nd and 3rd Respondent over its property, Zion Court, but which agreement was breached by them. However, sometimes in November 2013, the 2nd Respondent proposed a renegotiation to manage the Zion Court and the parties executed a fresh one year management agreement. In furtherance of the agreement the sum of N25, 000, 000. 00 was paid into the 1st Respondent’s account as part of the 2nd Respondent’s remittance in respect of 33 units of flats handed over to the 2nd Respondent to manage for a period of one year only. The 1st Respondent had no dealings whatsoever with the Appellants. The trial Court in its judgment dismissed the claims of the Appellant against the 1st Respondent. Aggrieved, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal containing three (3) Grounds of Appeal.

 

---

HELD

---

• Appeal Dismissed

 

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the 1st Respondent is liable to refund to the Appellants the sum of N19,000,000.00 being the balance of the sum of N25,000,000.00 paid by the 2nd Appellant into the bank account of the 1st Respondent in the light of the fact that the 1st Respondent did not sell any item or render any service to the Appellants in the said sum?

Whether in the light of the evidence led before the lower Court and the entire circumstance of this Suit, the 2nd Respondent is an agent of the 1st Respondent?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

REPLY BRIEF – PURPOSE OF A REPLY BRIEF

---

“The reply brief, it must be reiterated, is not and cannot be an avenue for an Appellant to re – argue his appeal or merely to have a second bite at the cherry. The Reply brief is for the serious business of answering to new points or fresh issues raised in the Respondent’s brief, which were not covered by the submissions in the Appellant’s brief. It need not and ought not to be filed just as a matter of course even where there is nothing new or fresh in the Respondent’s brief to respond to by the Appellant. See Order 19 Rules 5 (1) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2021, which provides thus:

“The Appellant may also, if necessary, within fourteen days of service on him of the Respondent’s brief, file and serve or cause to be served on the Respondent a reply brief which shall deal with all new points arising from the Respondent’s brief”

See Olafisoye V. FRN 2004 1SC Pt. 11 27; Ikine V. Edjerode (2001) 12 SC (Pt. 11) 94; Longe V. FBN (2010) 2 – 3 SC 61; Registered Trustees, Ikoyi Club 1938 V. Mr. Timothy Ikujuni (2019) LPELR – 47373 (CA)”. -PER B. A. GEORGEWILL, J.C.A

 

---

CREATION OF AGENCY – WAYS OF CREATION OF AGENCY

---

“In law, agency can be created in about four to five ways. SeeVulcan Gases Ltd. V. GF.IND. AG. (2001) 9 NWLR (Pt. 719) 610 @ Pp. 637 – 638, where the Supreme Court per Iguh JSChad espoused various ways of creation of agency inter alia thus:

“Usually, the relationship of principal and agent may arise in any one five ways, namely; (1) By express appointment whether orally or by letter of appointment or, indeed by Power of Attorney…(2) By ratification of the agent’s acts by the principal…(3) By virtue of the doctrine of estoppel (4) By implication of law in the case of agency of necessity and (5) By presumption of law in the case of cohabitation”

-PER B. A. GEORGEWILL, J.C.A

 

---

CASES CITED

---

NONE

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Court of Appeal Rules 2021

Evidence Act 2011

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT