CaseLaw
Ukpanah Vs. Ayaya (2010) CLR 3(w) (CA)
Judgement delivered on MArch 1st 2010
Brief
Facts
The appellant acquired a piece/parcel of land in 1973 from the late Ndidem Edim Imona, the Ntoe of Big Qua on behalf of Big Qua Town, Calabar, Cross River State. The parties also executed a lease agreement. Subsequently, the appellant fenced the land and put a gate.
Sometime in 2003, a solicitor acting for Big Qua Community wrote a letter to the appellant terminating the lease.
And in March 2005, the respondent was retained by Big Qua Community to carry out a survey of the land. The respondent surveyed the land and was paid off by the community on 13th May 2005.
Subsequently, the appellant's solicitor wrote a letter to the respondent to complain that the respondent trespassed on the land and to demand the sum of N10 Million as damages. The appellant also wrote to the Ndidem of Big Qua Community since, the land was within his domain.
The appellant did not receive any response from either the respondent or the Ndidem of Big Qua Community. Consequently, the appellant instituted an action for declaration of title, damages for trespass and perpetual injunction against the respondent at the High Court of Cross River State, Calabar. In his statement of defence, the respondent, without laying any claim to the land, averred amongst others that he was retained and taken to the land as a professional to survey the land by the Big Qua Community, which assignment was completed and his fees was paid long before the institution of the appellant's action.
During cross-examination of the respondent, he mentioned one Ntufam Inok Edim and the current Ndidem of the Quas as the persons who instructed him to survey the land even though he did not plead the names in his statement of defence.
After the conclusion of the hearing of the evidence adduced by the parties, the trial court delivered its judgment. It reviewed the cases of the parties and dismissed the appellant's claim on the ground that the respondent, being an agent of a disclosed principal, the Big Qua Community, incurred no liability for the alleged trespass.
The appellant was dissatisfied with the trial court's judgment and he appealed to the court of Appeal.
Issues
Whether the appellant could maintain an action against the respondent who...