CORAM

---

HON JUSTICE O. RHODES-VIVOUR

---

PARTIES

---

1. STANLEY UGBO VICTOR APPELLANTS

---

1. MRS THERESA O. IJEH2. MINISTER, FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY3. FEDERAL CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Plaintiff/1st Respondent filed an action at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory Abuja against the 2nd and 3rd Respondents and the Appellant as 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendants respectively on the allegation that during the sale of the Federal Government Houses exercise, the 1st Respondent as staff of the Federal Ministry of Transport and an occupant of the Ministry staff Quarters indicated his interest in purchasing a building and was subsequently offered Block 1. The Appellant on the other hand purchased Block 4BQ a boys quarter which the 1st Respondent claimed is a boys quarters attached to Block 1 which she purchased. After considering the case of the parties, the trial court nullified the claim of the Appellant and held that the boys’ quarter in dispute belonged to the 1st Respondent as part of the Block 1. Aggrieved by the decision of the court, the Appellant has appealed to the Court of Appeal.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

---

ISSUES

---

?    Whether the trial court was right when it held that the 1st Respondent was entitled to possession of Block 4BQ (boys quarters) along with the 4 bedroom duplex Block 1 which she purchased from the 3rd and Respondents”.?    Whether the trial court was right in dismissing the Appellant’s counter-claim”

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

CONTRACT – INGREDIENTS OF A LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT

---

“A legally enforceable agreement, which a contract is, has the following necessary ingredients to wit.
a) Offer
b) Acceptance
c) Consideration
d) Intention to create legal relationship
e) Capacity to contract.
These five necessary requirements must co-exit, as a contract cannot in law be formed in the absence of any of the ingredients – Azubuike Vs Govt, Enugu State (2014) 5 NWLR (part 1400) 364 at 370, Shell Petroleum Development Company Ltd Vs Fronthine Television Ltd (2011) LPELR 4955 and Obaike Vs B.GC Plc (1997) 10 NWLR (part 525) 435. “ PER T.Y. HASSAN, J.C.A.<foo< p=””></foo<>

---

ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION – PURPOSE FOR FORMULATING ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

---

“Issues for determination are meant to acquaint the court with the grievances of the parties in the appeal and subsequently assist the court in doing substantial justice in the determination of the issues.
Therefore issues for determination in any appeal must flow from the grounds of appeal. They must project clearly and succinctly the substance of the complaint contained in the grounds of appeal – Agbiti Vs Nigeria Navy (2011) 2 SCNJ 1 at 3.” PER. T.Y. HASSAN, J.C.A<foo< p=””></foo<>

---

PROOF OF COUNTER CLAIM – NATURE OF PROOF OF COUNTER CLAIM

---

“For what it is worth, a counter-claim is a claim which must be proved to the satisfaction of the court as required by law. The onus of proof which lies on the plaintiff to prove his claim is also on the defendant to prove the averments in his counter-claim against the plaintiff or he will fail in his claim. See Unokan Ent Ltd Vs Omuvwie (2005) 1 NWLR (part 907) 293.” PER T.Y. HASSAN, J.C.A.<foo< p=””></foo<>

---

COUNTER-CLAIM – DUTY OF A COUNTER CLAIMANT

---

“A counter claimant has the burden to establish his counter¬claim, failure of which the counter-claim will be liable to dismissal – Nsefit Vs Muna (2014) 2 NWLR (part 1390) 151.” PER T.Y. HASSAN, J.C.A.<foo< p=””></foo<>

---

NEMO DAT QUOD NON HABET – MEANING AND APPLICABILITY OF NEMO DAT QUOD NON HABET

---

“It is trite law that no one can validly give what he does not have. This is expressed in the latin maxim of nemo dat quod non habet. The maxim is most applicable where a party who does not have something purports to sell it. See Egbuta Vs Onuna (2007) 10 NWLR (part 1042) 298 Owena Bank Pic Vs Olatunji (2002) 12 NWLR (part 781) 259 and Olagunju Vs Yahoha (2004) 11 NWLR (part 883) 24.” PER T.Y. HASSAN, J.C.A.<foo< p=””></foo<>

---

COURT –DUTY OF A COURT

---

“The primary duty of court as an impartial obiter is to interprete contract entered into between parties in the fight of their clear intentions as conveyed by the agreement – Faloughi Vs First Impression Clearness Ltd (2014) 7 NWLR (part 1406) 335 at 343. PER T.Y. HASSAN, J.C.A.<foo< p=””></foo<>

---

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION MUST DERIVE FROM A COMPETENT GROUND OF APPEAL

---

“It is trite that issues to determine the appeal must be derivable from competent grounds of appeal properly couched from ratio decidendi of the decisions of the court being appealed against -Okponipere Vs State (2013) 2 SCNJ 179 at 181.” PER T.Y. HASSAN, J.C.A<foo< p=””></foo<>

---

DOCUMENT – WHAT TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE INTERPRETING THE CONTENT OF A DOCUMENT MADE BY PARTIES

---

“In the construction of terms of contract embodied in documents, the question is not what the parties to the documents may have intended to do by entering into that document, but what is the meaning of the words used in the document – Kings Planet Int.l Vs C.P.W.A. Ltd (2014) 2 NWLR (part 1392) 605 at 609. See also Amizu Vs Nzeribe (1989) 4 NWLR (part 118) 755.” PER T.Y. HASSAN, J.C.A.<foo< p=””></foo<>

---

RULES OF INTERPRETATION – CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS WORD MUST BE GIVEN THEIR NATURAL MEANING

---

“It is trite law that where words are clear and unambiguous they must be given their natural meaning. The letter offer with particular reference to “Schedule A” is clear and unambiguous it must therefore be given its grammatical meaning. See Onyedebulu Vs Nwaneri (2009) All FWLR (part 453) 270. PER T.Y. HASSAN, J.C.A.<foo< p=””></foo<>

---

BURDEN OF PROOF – ON WHO LIES THE BURDEN OF PROOF – SECTION 138(1) EVIDENCE ACT, 2011

---

“Section 138(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 is very clear that the burden of proof lies on the party who would fail if no evidence at all is established see Duru Vs Nwosu (1989) 4 NWLR (part 113) 24 and Dangote Vs Civil Service Commission Plateau State (2001) 4 SC (part 11) 43.” PER T.Y. HASSAN, J.C.A.<foo< p=””></foo<>

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Evidence Act, 2011

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT