CaseLaw
Salako V. Williams (1998) CLR 10(a) (CA)
Brief
Facts
As per writ of summons, the respondents who were plaintiffs in the lower court claimed the following reliefs against the appellants: -
Pleadings were ordered by the trial court, and they were exchanged accordingly. The plaintiff's case is that he bought the piece of land in dispute from 3rd defendant the original owner of the land and the 3rd defendant declared his transfer of title in the said land to him in the presence of witnesses in 1964. The plaintiff immediately commenced building on one of the two plots on the land, and when it was completed commenced building on one of the two plots on the land, and when it was completed he moved to the house with his family. However, before then one Saka Owode and E. A. Adeleke challenged plaintiff's title, and in order to avoid trouble the plaintiff paid them an undisclosed sum of money they demanded, which the 3rd defendant refused to the plaintiff. The plaintiff in retaliation collected £18 from the 3rd defendant under false pretences, and when the 3rd defendant discovered this, the 3rd defendant consequently sold the other plot to the 1st defendant and executed a conveyance. The 1st defendant broke down the wall fence the plaintiff had built round the two plots. The plaintiff claimed the following particulars of damages:
In his defence the 1st defendant denied most of the allegations in the plaintiff's statement of claim but admitted buying the said plot of land which he asserted he has no interest in anymore, as he has conveyed the plot to the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant denied that the plaintiff had any interest in the land, and relied on a deed, and pleaded the doctrine of 'nemo dat quod non habet'. He denied being liable to the plaintiff. Parties adduced evidence which were appraised by the learned trial Judge who also considered the addresses of both counsel. At the end of the day, the learned trial Judge found in favour of the plaintiff in this vein.