CaseLaw
Nig. Agric. Co-Op Bank Ltd Vs. Ozoemelam (2016) CLR 1(d) (SC)
Judgement delivered on January 22nd 2016
Brief
Facts
The plaintiff/respondent herein bought a piece of property from a third party, one Apolus Chikezie, his predecessor-in-title. Thereafter taking possession of the property, the respondent discovered that the property had been mortgaged by the predecessor-in-title to the defendant/appellant herein.
Afterwards, the outstanding debt on the property alongside accrued interest was paid off by the respondent who in turn demanded the release of the title document to him.
On the contrary, the appellant herein demanded for some form of authorization from his predecessor-in-title before the release of the document to the respondent. Consequently, an originating summons was taken out by the aggrieved respondent against the appellant asking the Kaduna High Court whether the refusal of the release of the title document amounted to a breach of agreement entered into by both parties (the plaintiff/respondent and the defendant/appellant); also whether the respondent is entitled to a refund of money he paid to the appellant upon his lack of interest of same to effect the agreement entered into.
Due to the fact that processes were duly served on the appellant and a date fixed for hearing in which the appellant neglected or refused to respond or be present in court or represented by counsel, the matter was heard and ruling was given in favour of the respondent. Hence, the appellant’s property was attached in the execution of judgment which was in favour of the respondent.
However, the appellant filed a motion for enlargement of time within which to set aside the judgment and order stays the execution of the judgment, particularly the sale of his vehicle and an application praying the court for further stay of execution particularly the sale of his bus Reg. No AJ 969 DKA pending the determination of the appeal against the earlier ruling of the trial court and an order to release the vehicle pending the hearing of the appeal.
Nevertheless, the application was denied by the trial court by ordering the payment of deposit of the judgment sum into the account of the High Court pending the determination of the appeal before the Court of Appeal.
The appellant appealed with leave of court to the Court of Appeal against the ruling which was subsequently dismissed. Hence, the appeal to the Supreme Court.