CaseLaw
Ude Vs. Osuji (1990) CLR 6(e) (CA)
Judgement delivered on Tuesday, 19th June, 1990
Brief
Facts
The appellant's account of the transaction is briefly that sometime in 1974, the respondent who had the fiduciary relationship of solicitor/counsel to the appellant negotiated and bought a piece of vacant land known as and called "Ezi-Umuororonjo" situate along Madumere Street, Owerri at a purchase price of £800 (N1,600.00). A Conveyance prepared in his capacity as appellant's solicitor was drafted by the respondent and executed by the appellant in 1974 in respondent's favour. Earlier on, the respondent had been responsible for drawing up a Deed of Conveyance over a larger piece of land incorporating that now involved in the case on appeal for the appellant's father (See Exhibit 'B'). On June 4, 1974, that is after the execution of the Conveyance now subject matter of this action, respondent wrote a letter (See Exhibit 'C') to the appellant requesting for the refund of the purchase price of N1,600.00. Despite all the entreaties with the respondent by the appellant that the land was not encumbered the respondent insisted on a refund of his money. Whereupon, the appellant tendered to the respondent N800, being half the purchase price which the respondent promptly refused, insisting that he wanted his money enbloc. When, therefore the purchase price was not refunded to him as he desired, the respondent lodged a report with the Police alleging that the appellant and his now deceased father obtained the said sum of N1,600.00 by falsely representing that they were the owners of the portion of land at Madumere Street, Owerri and with intent to defraud the respondent thereof. The appellant and his father were therefore charged with stealing the said sum of money, property of the respondent based on three counts.
It was further maintained that the criminal trial which lasted until 1976 be¬fore the Chief Magistrate, Owerri finally ended in their discharge and acquittal on the three counts (Exhibit 'D' refers). It is then stated that the criminal proceedings attracted press comments (See Exhibit 'E') culminating in a query for him from his then employers, the Board of Customs and Excise (See Exhibit 'G') and ultimately his compulsory retirement from their service in September, 1975 vide Exhibit J. That soon after the discharge of appellant and his father, he (appellant) caused his solicitor, P.C. Onumajulu, by a letter dated 6/4/76 to forward the entire purchase money of N1,600.00 to the respondent by cheque (vide Exhibit 'K'), The respondent, it is said, returned the cheque (Exhibit 'Li') by his letter dated 24/4/76 (Exhibit 'L'), stating therein that agreements touching the land could not be unilaterally abrogated and that, in any event, he (respondent) had conveyed the same piece of land to one Mr. O.T. Nnadi. That since the renunciation and abrogation of the land transaction by Exhibit 'C' in 1976 the appellant had re-sumed possession of the land in question which therefore was the genesis of the respondent's action commenced by his writ that issued on July 13, 1983, for the reliefs herein-before set out. The respondent, it is contended, rested his case on a deed of conveyance (Exhibit 'A') which was obviously updated to 17 June, 1976 and thereafter registered. Finally, that at the trial, despite the abundant defence of estoppel by conduct, discharge of contract and renunciation thereof canvassed by the appellant, the learned trial Judge albeit entered judgment for the respondent, ninety-three days after final addresses. Hence, this appeal.
The respondent's own story goes hereunder thus:
In 1974 he bought from the appellant a piece of land and paid him (ap¬pellant) the sum of N1,600.00. He later found a customary tenant on the land who informed him that she (the customary tenant) was put on the land by appellant's father. He wrote Exhibit 'C' demanding from the appellant the sum of N1,600.00 he paid for the land, part-payment only which appellant despatched to him but which he promptly refused and he thereupon made a report to the police. The appellant was charged to court for obtaining money by false pretences but later in court, after the customary tenant had denied any interest in the land and the appellant was discharged and acquitted, he thereafter in 1976 entered into a formal agreement with the appellant viz Exhibit 'A' although denied by the appellant. That sometime in 1979, the appellant for reasons best known to him, went on the land and built a number of temporary structures into which he put tenants and was collecting rents from them. He thereupon sued the appellant and succeeded in his claim wherein the appellant although admitted he executed a Deed of Conveyance, produced none in court and the trial court when faced with only Exhibit 'A', expressed satisfaction that the appellant executed it by rightly so holding.