CaseLaw
Mbanefo Vs. Agbu & Anor. (2014) CLR 1(B) 2014
Judgement delivered on January 31st 2014
Brief
Facts
This appeal is against the decision of the Court of Appeal Enugu Judicial Division allowing the appeal against the judgment of the High Court sitting at Onitsha, Anambra State for ordering in favour of the plaintiff the refund to him of the purchase price and the award of general damages for breach of contract of sale of a plot of land situate at Akwuefe Layout Umutasia of Ogbeodogwu at "3-3" in Onitsha Urban of Anambra State with costs assessed and fixed at N3, 000.00. The matter has now come to this court on appeal lodged by the plaintiff.
Evidently from the pleadings filed and exchanged by the parties as well as from their respective viva voce testimonies in the case at the trial court, the facts of this case are not complicated.
They run as follows: In this court the plaintiff is the appellant and the 1st defendant (a legal practitioner) and the 2nd defendant (at all material times the vendor in this matter are the 1st and 2nd respondents respectively in this appeal). It is the appellant's case that about March 1995 that the 1st respondent came to his place with the 2nd respondent and offered to sell to him the aforesaid plot of land at the agreed sum of N180,000.00, (One Hundred and Eighty Thousand Naira only) and he paid the same. From the receipt issued to him for the said sum, he noticed that the 1strespondent acted in the transaction for the 2nd respondent as his solicitor which state of affairs were unknown to him from the start of their negotiation. In addition to paying the premium the appellant claimed to have paid N10, 000.00 for the survey plan of the said plot of land and a further sum of N17, 000.00 for the preparation of a memorandum of customary grant of the land to him and for the Governor's consent as required under Section 22 of the Land Use Act. The appellant complained that the respondents failed to obtain the Governor's consent to the transaction as agreed. About 1997, the appellant noticed the presence of trespassers on the land and confronted the 1st respondent on the question to no avail as they resold the land to the trespasser. The respondents in their defence filed at the trial court denied ever reselling the land to another person. It is to be noted that the appellant's case rested on the fact that the respondents fraudulently resold the land to someone else. In the circumstances, the appellant prayed as per his claim. It is the respondents' case that they sold the plot of land to the appellant and put him in possession thereof in accordance with the custom. For two years he failed to develop the land and no wonder trespassers entered the land and took over the land. The appellant stood by and did nothing.
The trial court at the conclusion of the case before it gave judgment for the appellant against the 2nd respondent as the owner of the land in question; it however, dismissed the claim against the 1st respondent who was found by the trial court acted solely as solicitor for the 2nd respondent in the transaction and therefore not liable.
The 2nd respondent has appealed the trial court's 'decision while the appellant has also cross-appealed to the court below. The court below in its judgment has allowed the appeal of the 2nd respondent and has dismissed the plaintiffs claim in its entirety and it has also dismissed the cross-appeal. Hence the appellant has filed an appeal.