Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Iragunima V.RSHP (2003) CLR 5(f) (SC)

Judgement delivered on May 23rd 2003

Brief

  • Concurrent finding of fact
  • Equity regards as done that which ought to be done
  • Equitable interest
  • Assignment of lease
  • Title to land

Facts

This is a further appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal given on 9/6/95 wherein the appeal of the present Appellant to that Court was dismissed and the judgment of the trial High Court was affirmed.

The Plaintiff Mrs. Abigael Uchendu had sued the Rivers State Housing and Development Authority, the Attorney-General of River State and Dr. N.A Iragunima as 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendants respectively, claiming, as per paragraph 31 of her amended Statement of Claim, as follows:

  • (1)
    A declaration that the plaintiff is the rightful owner of plot 9 Orije Layout in Block 254 otherwise known as No.3 Oloibiri Street, Orije Layout, Port-Harcourt, having purchased the same for the sum of N40,000.00 from Mr. James Okoro who had a valid lease of the property at the time of sale and to whom the property was validly released.
  • (2)
    A declaration that the 3rd Defendant is not entitled to the ownership of the said Plot 9 Block 254/No.3 Oloibiri Street, Orije Layout, having not purchased same from the rightful owner.
  • (3)
    A declaration that any purpose sale of the said property by the 1st Defendant to the 3rd Defendant is void and of no effect.
  • (4)
    N100,000.00 special and general damages for trespass, from the Defendants.
  • (5)
    A perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants their servants and or agents from further acts of trespass upon the said property.”

Pleadings having been filled and exchanged the matter went to trial upon the Plaintiff’s amended Statement of Claim and the Statements of defence of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants respectively. The 1st Defendant did not file any pleading. At the trial evidence was given in support of Plaintiff’s case; the Defendants did not adduce any evidence but rather rested their case on that of the Plaintiff. In effect they did not deny any of the evidence given by the Plaintiff and her witness, James Okoro. The learned trial Judge, in a reserved judgment found Plaintiffs case proved and granted the reliefs sought.

Dissatisfied, the 3rd Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal which dismissed the appeal. He further appealed to the Supreme Court, joining the 1st and 2nd Defendants to the Plaintiff as co-Respondents.

Issues

  • 1.
    Whether the 2nd Respondent (Plaintiff) succeeded in proving her case for...
    Read More