The facts of this case briefly put were as follows: - Sometime in 1992, the appellant herein was offered for sale a Mercedes Benz 1618 with registration No. KB96 A for the sum of N250,000.00, by one Alhaji Buda Umaru the P.W.2, who had imported the vehicle into the country. Unable to raise the purchase price of N250,000.00, the appellant approached the respondent who is a Motor dealer and from whom he had previously purchased another vehicle thereby establishing a relationship for a loan of N100,000.00. He then agreed to pay installmentally for the lorry.

The appellant took delivery of the vehicle from Pw2 and commenced a haulage business with same only to run into problem, the repairs and cost of which made it impossible for him to pay the respondent her N100, 000.00 through the agreed installments.

The respondent thereupon seized the appellant's said vehicle to which had been affixed a trailer and detained the same. The appellant was making efforts to effect and secure the release of the vehicle when the respondents suddenly turned round to claim that she was the one who sold the vehicle to the appellants on an alleged hire purchase agreement. This was followed by letter from the respondent's counsel, (Exh. P2) through which the respondent formally claims the sum of N225,000.00 as the hire purchase debt arising out of the loan of N100, 000.00. All entreaties by the appellant to have the respondents release the vehicle failed to yield dividends as the buyer. Consequently, the appellant took out a Writ of Summons against the respondent.

Briefs were filed and exchanged between the parties who called witnesses and gave evidence in support of their respective contentions. Learned counsel to the parties also addressed the court. At the end of the trial learned trial judge in his judgment held that the relationship that subsisted between the parties were premised upon a hire purchase transaction which was however rendered incapable of enforcement by the respondent for non-compliance with the relevant provision of the Hire Purchase Act, 1965 as amended. The learned trial judge thus held that the respondent could not repossess the vehicle extra-judicially as she did and that the seizure of the vehicle by the respondent is unlawful and illegal. The court also held that the disposal of the vehicle by the respondent is equally illegal. Notwithstanding, the above findings, the owner court in a dramatic twist, however, turned to dismiss the appellant's case in its entirety upon the excuse that the appellant did not strictly prove the market value.