ALH YUSUF ASAKA VS ALH SALEH RAMINKURA

CORAM

PARTIES

ALH. UMAR YUSUF ASAKA APPELLANTS

ALH. SALEH RAMINKURA & 2 0RS RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Plaintiff/Appellant entered into an agreement with the 1st Defendant/Respondent for the purchase of his property known as No. 3 Fabson Close, Tudun Wada, Kaduna. The sum of N2,250,000.00 was agreed on as the purchase price and the Plaintiff/Appellant made an initial deposit of N55,000.00 and later N450,000.00 after which he agreed to pay the balance on the 24th of October, 2003, failing which the 1st Defendant/Respondent would be at liberty to sell the same to a 3rd party. After the expiration of the agreed date, the Plaintiff/Appellant made payments amounting to N1, 350,000.00 to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants/Respondents who were agents of the 1st Defendant/Respondent. He thereafter attempted to pay the balance of N400, 000 to the 1st Defendant/Respondent who rejected it on the ground that the date for completion of payment had lapsed and thus the agreement had been extinguished and he was no longer under the obligation to sell the property to the Plaintiff/Appellant. The 1st Defendant/Respondent filed an action in the Upper Sharia Court, Kaduna, seeking the invalidation of the purported sale of the property when it became clear the Plaintiff/Appellant could not complete the payment of the purchase price of the property. The Plaintiff/Appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the Upper Sharia Court successfully and immediately brought an action at the High Court to enforce the contract of sale. At the end of the trial, in a considered judgment, the learned trial Court dismissed the Plaintiff/Appellant’s claim and granted the counter-claim, in part. Displeased by the decision of the trial court, the Plaintiff/Appellant has appealed to the Court of Appeal.

HELD

Appeal dismissed.

ISSUES

Were the 2nd and 3rd Respondents acting as agents of the 1st Respondent when they collected the further instalemental payments from the Appellant outside the time limit stipulated in Exhibit Dl, to justify the call by the Appellant for order of specific performance of the contract in Exhibit P2?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND ISSUES RAISED THEREON MUST FLOW FROM THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT.

“The rules governing appeal are quite trite, that, both the ground of appeal and issue canvassed on appeal must be founded upon and rooted in the decision of the trial court, and that where the trial court never considered an issue, no appeal can be raised thereon appeal. See the case of Unilorin VS. Olawepo [2012] 52 WRN 42; Ojemen Vs. Momodu [1993] 1 NWLR [PT. 323] 685; Oseni VS. Bajulu [2010] ALL FWLR [PT. 511] 813; and Ossai VS. FRN [2012] LPELR 19669 [CA]; [2013] 13 WRN 87.” PER I. G. MBABA, J.C.A

TERMS OF A CONTRACT – PARTIES ARE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF A CONTRACT

“The law is that where parties have entered into a contract voluntarily and there is nothing to show that same was obtained by fraud, mistake, deception or misrepresentation, they are bound by the provisions or terms of the contract or agreement. See the case of A.G. Rivers Vs. A.G. Akwa Ibom (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1248) 31; Ebla Const. Ltd. VS. Costan (Wa) Plc. (2011) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1242) 110; Agrovet Sincho Pharm. Ltd. VS. Estate of Engr. Dahiru (supra) at 33 – 34.” PER I. G. MBABA, J.C.A

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE – A PARTY SEEKING AN ORDER OF SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE TO ENFORCE A CONTRACT MUST COME WITH CLEAN HANDS.

“The issue of specific performance does not arise, where the party seeking to enforce a contract or agreement was, himself, in breach of the fundamental terms of the contract. He can only seek that equitable remedy, if he has put his house in order and shown compliance with his own side of the agreement. After-all, he who comes to equity must do so with clean hands!” PER I. G. MBABA, J.C.A

AGENT – AN AGENT MUST ACT WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE POWERS DONATED TO HIM BY THE PRINCIPAL.

“The law is that an agent must act within the scope of his authority, to be able to commit his principal. See the case of Okwejiminor Vs. Gbakeji [2008] ALL FWLR [Pt. 409] 405 at 488; Abina VS. Farhat [1983] 14 NLR 17; Okojejie Vs. Okupe [1039] 15 NLR 28; Universal Vulcanization Nig. Co. Ltd. Vs. Ijesha United Trading & Transport Co. Ltd. [1992] 9 NWLR [PT. 266] 388; John Oyegun VS. Lucky Igbinedion [1992] 2 NWLR [PT. 226] 747; Agrovet Sincho Pharm Ltd. Vs. Estate of Engr Dahiru (SUPRA) at 40-41.” PER I. G. MBABA, J.C.A

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

None

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT