May 25, 2025
Legalpedia Citation: (2010) Legalpedia (SC) 80731 In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Fri May 7, 2010 Suit Number: SC.238/2004 CORAM PARTIES PADA CHABASAYA APPELLANTS JOE ANWASI RESPONDENTS AREA(S) […]
CORAM
PARTIES
PADA CHABASAYA APPELLANTS
JOE ANWASI
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant was a tenant in the respondent’s house with an option to purchase the property but the appellant connived with the land registry to procure C of O and started collecting rent. The respondent unsuccessfully instituted an action on the undefended list against the appellant. On further appeal, the Court of appeal allowed his appeal and granted his claims. The appellant has appealed
HELD
Appeal dismissed
ISSUES
1. Whether the Court below was right by holding that the Appellant did not furnish consideration, to make the contract between him and the Respondent for the sale of the disputed property enforceable or valid.?
2. Whether the learned justices of the Court of Appeal was (sic) wrong when they held thus “The stand taken by the learned counsel for the respondent on this issue (The issue whether the contract was a contract under seal) is misconceived. It was the trial judge who held that Exhibit 2 was contract under seal. If he had held otherwise he would not have entered judgment in favour of the respondent. The appellant is therefore right to have raised the issue because it arose from the judgment he is challenging.?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
LIBERTY OF APPELLATE COURT ON ISSUES RAISED.
An appellate court is at liberty to choose any of the issues raised in the brief to treat first. Per MUKHTAR JSC
WANT OF CONSIDERATION.
A contract in which consideration has not been met is one that can be said has been breached and is unenforceable as consideration is one of the terms of the contract. Per MUKHTAR JSC
RELEVANT AND UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE.
Evidence that is relevant to the issue in controversy, and that is not successfully challenged, contradicted, and discredited is good and reliable evidence to which probative value, ought to be ascribed and, which ought to influence the judge in the determination of the case before it. Per MUKHTAR JSC
CASES CITED
1. Elias v. Omo-Bare 1982 5 SC. 25,
2. Woluchem v. Gudi 1981 5 SC. 291,
3. Odulaja v. Haddad 1973 11 SC 357,
4. George v. U.B.A. 1972 8 – 9 SC 264
5. Omoregbe v. Lawani 1980 3 -4 SC 105
STATUTES REFERRED TO
None