This is an appeal against the decision of the Court below (Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja) delivered on the 12th of April, 2002 allowing the Respondent's appeal, setting aside the judgment of the trial Court delivered on the 24th March 2000 and in its place, entered an order dismissing the Plaintiff/Appellant's claim in to.

I shall preface the consideration of this appeal with the relevant facts leading to same. The Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) and the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent) got married sometime in 1976 and cohabited as husband and wife. They had four children. They ceased to live together as husband and wife from November 1993. By a Land Application Form dated 15th May 1990, Ref. No.MFCT/TA/90/AN/2685, the Ministry of Federal Capital Territory, Land Administration Department, acting on the instruction of the Honourable Minister acknowledged the receipt of the application form for allocation of land duly completed by the Appellant. Suffice it to say that the written response of the Minister dated 15th July 1990 was addressed to the Appellant. According to the Appellant, the Respondent, her husband then, and who were staffs of the Federal Capital Development Authority, was entrusted by her with the processing of the application and follow up towards obtaining the Certificate of Occupancy. She (the Appellant) claimed she made available to her husband, the Respondent, all the money needed to facilitate the allocation of the plot of land to her. The Respondent however contended that he paid all the expenses on the land. He also claimed that he informed the Appellant that he would apply for the land using the Appellant's name and that the Appellant never raised any objection to the idea. It was at this stage that cohabitation between the husband and wife ceased. The Respondent at this point in time went and collected the original Certificate of Occupancy. When the Appellant realised that the Respondent had collected the Certificate of Occupancy without her knowledge and consent, she demanded for the release of same to her. But the Respondent refused to hand it over to her. And all entreaties for the release having failed, the Appellant sought a redress from the Court of law. She claimed from the Defendant/Respondent the following reliefs:-

It should be noted that at the commencement of the suit, the Plaintiff/Appellant had in her writ of summons joined the Hon. Minister of the FCDA as the second Defendant, but she later brought an application which was granted, striking out the name of the said Minister as the second Defendant.

Pleadings were filed and exchanged between the parties. The case then proceeded to hearing at the end of which, in a reserved judgment, delivered on the 24th March 2000, the trial Judge found in favour of the Plaintiff/Appellant.

Being dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the Defendant/Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal which allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the trial Court and in its place, entered an order dismissing the Plaintiff/Appellant's claim in toto. In so doing, the Court of Appeal accepted the defence of resulting trust as raised by the Defendant.

Being dissatisfied with the said judgment, the Plaintiff/Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.