The facts which gave rise to the suit filed by the plaintiff at the court below are fairly simple although the brief of argument gave the background of the facts in a rather continued matter. The Land in dispute is situate in New Nyaya, Gbagi in Karu Local Government Area of Nassarawa State. On 11th October, 1996 the plaintiff purchased two plots of land measuring 100’x50’ in total from the 1st defendant at a total price of N23, 000.00. The parties accordingly entered into a written agreement to that effect. Plaintiff therefore divided the piece of land into two parts and between the months of November and December, 1996 – and certainly before Christmas – he commenced construction on one of the parts getting through to foundation level. He stopped work for few days and when he returned to site on 30th December, 1996 he found that the 2nd defendant had continued construction on the foundation he laid. When he confronted the 1st defendant, he was told that he (1st defendant) had sold that portion of land and that the plaintiff should be patient enough to collect the sum of N10, 000.00 in lieu of the piece of land. There is however a slight variation in the story of the 1st and 2nd defendants who claim that it was indeed the plaintiff who instructed 1st defendant to dispose of the piece of land for the reason that he did not require it any longer because a Luka (an adjacent land owner) had encroached on the land and constructed a suck-away thus reducing the portion of the land to 50’ x 40’. Plaintiff denied that he ever gave such an instruction. At the end of it all DWIII being a senior brother of the 1st defendant of full blood sold the piece of land to the 2nd defendant for a consideration of N30, 000.00 out of which the plaintiff was offered to collect N10, 000.00. Aggrieved by the above the plaintiff took out a writ of summons claiming in the main a declaration of title, injunction, special and general damages. In reply the 1st defendant counter claimed asking for N200, 000.00 general damages for wrongful arrest and detention he was said to have suffered at the instance of the plaintiff. It is the resultant judgment that has attracted the appeal and the cross appeal.