3PLR – ABAYOMI OLALEKAN V. THE STATE
POLICY, PRACTICE AND PUBLISHING, LAW REPORTS 3PLR
[PDF copy of this judgment can be sent to your email for N300 only. Just order through lawnigeria@gmail.com and info@lawnigeria.com or text 07067102097]
ABAYOMI OLALEKAN
V.
THE STATE
COURT OF APPEAL
ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION
22ND MAY 2001
LN-e-LR/2001/4 (CA)
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS
DAHIRU MUSDAPHER
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAHI MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
ZAINAB A. BULKACHUWA
BETWEEN
ABAYOMI OLALEKAN
AND
THE STATE
REPRESENTATION
M.M. Nurudeen for the appellant/cross respondent.
A.A. Kayode with Mrs. J.A. Adesina for the respondent/cross appellant.
MAIN ISSUES
COMMERCIAL LAW – CONTRACT:– Intention of parties and terms of a written contract – How discovered.
COMMERCIAL LAW – CONTRACT:– Party benefiting financially from a contract – Whether can refuse to give consideration to the other party by passing title of the property to the latter.
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – EVIDENCE – Onus of proof under sections 136 and 137 of Evidence Act – On whom lies – Effect of failure to discharge onus.
REAL ESTATE/LAND LAW – Registrable instruments – Failure to register a registrable instrument under section 15 of Land Instrument Registration Law Cap 58 Laws of Northern Nigeria 1963 – Effect of – Whether instrument capable of transferring an equitable interest.
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – PLEADINGS AND EVIDENCE:- Pleadings not supported by evidence – Effect of
MAIN JUDGMENT
BULKACHUWA, JCA (Delivering the leading judgment):
The appellant, as plaintiff took out a writ of summons at the High Court, FCT, Abuja on the 24th November, 1994 whereby he was seeking for the following relief’s against the defendant now the respondent:
- A declaration that the plaintiff only is conferred with and entitled to interest in Plot No. 1256 situate, lying and being at cadastral zone A4 Asokoro District, Abuja and covered by certificate of occupancy No. FCT/ABU/KN/1054 having been lawfully granted same by the authority charged with the power to so grant;
- A declaration that there is no sale by the plaintiff or at all of the said Plot No. 1256 situate, lying and being a cadastral zone A4. Asokoro District, Abuja and covered by certificate of occupancy No. FCT/ABU/KN 1054 granted to the plaintiff;
- A declaration that any purported sale of the said plot 1256 to the defendant or at all is illegal, null and void;
- A declaration that the only valid building plan in respect of the said Plot No. 1256, Asokoro district, Abuja, is that submitted by the plaintiff and approved by FCDA, its agents, servants or privies in the year 1992 and that any other subsequent building plans in respect of the said plot and any action, whether by way of correspondence of approval based on the subsequent plan is illegal, null and void;
- An order that the certificate of occupancy No.FCT/ABU/KN/1054 over the said Plot No. 1256 granted the plaintiff and all other documents related thereto and which were deposited with the defendant as a result of the intention to sell and which are still in the possession of the defendant or his servant, agents, privies, or anybody or organization or authority at all be returned to the plaintiff forthwith;
- The sum of N1, 500.000 (one million five hundred thousand naira only) being the value of the building already put up on the said Plot No. 1256 Asikoro District Abuja, by the plaintiff, which was destroyed by the defendant, or his agents, or servant or privies or assigns.
- The sum of N800, 000 (eight hundred thousand naira only), being the value of building materials on site, i.e. the said Plot No. 1256 Asokoro District, Abuja which were converted by the defendant into his personal use.
- The sum of N15,000.000 (fifteen million naira only) as general damages for trespass, embarrassment, shock and damages suffered as a result of the defendants acts;
- Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, servants, privies, representatives and or assigns from further acts of trespass on the said Plot No. 1256 situate, lying and being at cadastral zone A4, Asokoro District, Abuja covered by certificate of occupancy No. FCT/ABU/KN/1054 granted to the plaintiff;
The defendant entered appearance, denied the plaintiff’s claim and entered his counter-claim in the following terms in an amended statement of defence dated 6/11/95:
(a) A declaration that the defendant is the bona-fide owner of Plot No. 103-105 covered by certificate of occupancy No. FCT/ABU/MISC. 5914 and plot covered by certificate of occupancy No. FCT/ABU/KN/1054;
(b) A mandatory order compelling the plaintiff to execute in favour of the defendant deed of assignment and power of attorney in respect of the plots of land or alternatively directing the court registrar to execute same in favour of the defendant;
(c) A mandatory order compelling the plaintiff to submit or hand over to the defendant the certificate of occupancy No. FCT/ABU/MISC/5914;
(d) General damages in the sum of N20, 000.00 (twenty million naira) for the trespass on the defendants properties;
(e) Perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff his agents or privies from trespassing continuing further acts of trespass on the defendant’s properties.
The plaintiff testified, called 3 witnesses and tendered 9 exhibits. The defendant did not testify but called one witness and tendered three exhibits.
The evidence as adduced by the plaintiff was to the effect that, sometimes in May, the plaintiff approached the defendant, his cousin, to pledge his four plots of land situate within the FCT for the total sum of N2, 000,000.000 (two million naira). These plots are covered by certificates of occupancy no:
- FCT/ABU/KN/1054
- FCT/ABU/KN/1536
- MFCT/LA/90/MISC. 5914/12
- MFCT/LA/90/MISC. 5903/16
The defendant paid the plaintiff the sum of N1, 000,000 (one million naira) vide Afribank Cheque No. BC/12/8409 of 21st May 1992 on the condition that the remaining balance of N1, 000,000 (one million naira) was to be paid within one hundred and twenty days otherwise the plaintiff would refund the deposit of N1, 000,000 (one million naira) paid and withdraw the letter of agreement. This agreement was put into writing and tendered by the plaintiff as exhibit P1.
The plaintiff then deposited the four certificates of occupancy with the defendant. When the 120 days lapsed and the defendant did not pay the balance of N1, 000,000 the plaintiff applied for approval of building plans to the FCDA on Plot No. 1256 which building plan was approved and he commenced building on the land in 1993. He started building boys quarters and a two-bedroom guest wing and had reached roof level, when the defendant went into the land and demolished the building and erected a new building on the land. That what was between them was a redeemable pledge not a sale agreement, the defendant having failed to pay the N1, 000,000 as agreed in exhibit P1 within the stipulated 120 days has no claim to the plots after the expiry of the said 120 days.
The defendant adduced evidence to show that there was another agreement exh. D3 in which he agreed with the plaintiff that the N1, 000,000 he earlier paid to the plaintiff entitled him to two of the plots and he returned the two other certificate of occupancy to the plaintiff. The trial court after hearing both parties, dismissed the plaintiff’s claim saying that exh. D3 entitles the defendant to the two plots. He also dismissed the defendant’s counter claim in that the defendant had adduced no evidence in support of his pleadings.
Both parties dissatisfied with the decision of that court appealed and cross-appealed respectively. The appellant had appealed to this court on two grounds of appeal, which are produced below: –
- Ground of Appeal:
The learned trial Judge misdirected himself on the facts when he held that both parties i.e. plaintiff and defendant failed to honour their respective obligations under the contract.
Particulars of Misdirection:
(i) When an examination on exhibit P.1 shows that the defendant/respondent was obliged to pay the balance of N1, 000,000 within 120 days from 16/5/92 and no similar time frame within which to repay the N1, 000,000 already paid was foisted upon the plaintiff appellant by the agreement.
(ii) Whereas there was ample evidence before the Judge to establish the breach of the agreement by the defendant/respondent as the learned trial Judge found in his finding on (page 11 of the judgment) to wit; “However from the testimony of the plaintiff on the issue which is unchallenged and which I accept, the defendant did not completely honour his obligations under the agreement”
There was no evidence at all of a breach of agreement by the plaintiff/appellant.
(iii) When from the evidence of the plaintiff/appellant both in examination-in-chief and cross examination and paragraphs 6 and 7 of his statement of claim which were really not denied by the statement of defence, he gave the sum of N1, 000,000 (one million naira) to the defendant/respondent on 27/10/92 in repayment of the N1, 000,000 paid by the defendant which the defendant/respondent refused to accept, this establishing that he (the plaintiff) was not in breach of the agreement. Indeed exhibit P.2 is a letter from the defendant/respondent refusing to accept the money.
Ground 2
The learned trial Judge erred in law when he admitted exh. D3 in evidence
Particulars of Error
(i) When exhibit D3 being an instrument within the meaning of S. 2 of the Land Instrument Registration Law is registerable under the said law;
(ii) not having been so registered as required by section 6 and 15 of the said law the said exh.D3 should not have been pleaded and a fortiori given in evidence.
(iii) consequently, the finding, therefore, that exh. D3 had altered the contract between the parties (which is the most important reason for the court finding for the defendant) has, accordingly, no legal basis because exh. D3 being an inadmissible document cannot lend itself to that purpose;
(iv) similarly the finding at p. 15 of the judgment that this was a valid sale of the plots to the defendants in exh. D3 also has no legal force above but more especially in view of the fact that the defendant’s counter- claim was struck out.
The respondent to this appeal cross- appealed on a single ground of appeal to wit: –
GROUND ONE
The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that the defendant failed to prove his counter- claim.
Particulars
- The sum total of appellants counter claim is a declaration that he is the bona-fide owner of Plot No. 103-105 covered by certificate of occupancy No. FCT/ABU/MISC. 5914 and plot covered by certificate of occupancy No. FCT/ABU/KN/1054.
- There was ample evidence before the trial court that the appellant has a better title to the above named plots.
Briefs were filed and exchanged in respect of the two appeal and the appeals heard simultaneously by this court. In the circumstances, I will first consider the argument of the main appeal.In his brief, learned counsel to the appellant framed the following issues;
- Whether exhibit P1 creates any obligation on the appellant to repay the N1,000.000 paid to him within 120 days as required of the respondent by the agreement;
- Whether exhibit D3 being registered instrument and not having been so registered can be pleaded in evidence in view of S. 15 of the Land Instruments Registration Law
As alternative to (2) above
- Whether exhibit D3 can be admitted and relied upon to prove passage of title from the appellant to the respondent or can be admitted only for the purpose of showing receipt of money by the appellant.
The respondent on the other hand filed 3 issues as follows:-
- Is the appellant still the bona-fide owner of plot 1256 Asokoro, Abuja covered by certificate of occupancy No. FCT/ABU/KN/1054 and plot MISC 5914 Karmo;
- Was the learned trial Judge right to hold that both parties i.e appellant and respondent failed to honour their respective obligations under the contract, under exhibit P1;
- Was there a valid contract of sale of the two plots in issue to the respondent having regard to exhibit D3.
After a careful consideration of the issues so raised in the briefs filed on behalf of the parties, it is my view that the issues set down in the two briefs are not dissimilar in terms of their purport and intent, I will accordingly determine this appeal on the basis of the issues as identified in the appellant’s brief.
On the 1st issue it was contended for the appellant that the trial Judge misdirected himself on the facts when he held at page 121 of the printed records that both parties were in breach of the agreement as per exhibit P1. That the only true interpretation of exhibit. P1 is that it was the respondent who was obliged to pay the balance of N1 million to the appellant within 120 days, failing which the appellant could then redeem his property by paying back the N1 million he received. That the appellant had asserted in his pleadings and led evidence to show that he had discharged his part of the agreement by re-paying N1 million to the respondent on 27/10/92 which repayment the respondent refused to accept.
The finding of the trial Judge – “throughout the proceedings I have not seen any evidence that the plaintiff has made such payment to the defendant” – was therefore perverse particularly in the light of exhibit P which is a letter from the respondent refusing to accept the money after the expiration of 120 days urged us to set aside the finding pertaining to exhibit P1.
The respondent was of the view that exhibit P1 was a conditional sale agreement between the parties. That the appellant having failed to refund to the respondent the sum of N1 million already collected under the agreement, it stands to reason that the respondent be given two plots out of the four intended to be sold to the respondent. He urged us to hold that exhibit P1 is a sale agreement which diverts title of two out of four properties from the appellant.
For ease of reference exhibit P1 on the appellant’s letterhead is reproduced below:
“I , Munzali Dantata, hereby agree to sell the following under-listed properties in Abuja, FCT to Alhaji Abdulkadir S. Dantata for the sum of two million naira only (N2,000.000). I have collected the sum of one million naira only N1,000,000) Afribank cheque No. 218408, dated 16/05/92 as part payment. The balance will be paid after 120 days, or I will refund his money in full and withdraw this letter dated today Saturday the 16th of May 1992.
Properties:
- All states Travel MFCT/LA/90/MISC. 5914/12
- All States Travel MFCT/LA/90/MISC. 5903/16
- Munzali A. Dantata MFCT/LA/87/KN – 1054
- Nabila A. Dantata MFCT/LA/91/KN – 1563
Signed:
Munzali Dantata Abdulkadir Dantata
Witness
Singed
Abdullahi M. Salami
The above is a sale agreement on its face value between the parties and the trial court had correctly observed (see page 121 lines 15-24) where he said “in my view exhibit P1 is a simple agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, listed therein to the latter for the sum of N1 million, half of which the defendant promptly paid. The balance to be paid to plaintiff within 120 days. I further understand this agreement between the parties to also include an option or right on the part of the plaintiff to return the N1 million part payment if the defendant failed to pay the balance of the purchase price after 120 days and to withdrawn the agreement.”
In a written contract, as the one at hand, the intention of the parties is always to be gathered from the document itself and the terms are to be determined by the parties not the court. All that a court does is to construe the words used by the parties in the agreement – Olanlege v. CAN Ltd. 1996 7 SCNJ 145, Banque Genervoise De Commerce Et. De Credit v. C.I.A. Mardi Isola Spetsal Ltd. (No.2) 1962 All N.L.R. 565. Exh. P1 is therefore a sale agreement simpliciter between the appellant and the respondent of the four plots in question, no matter what the appellant alleges. The terms of the agreement are straight forward and each of the parties knew of his obligation under the agreement. It was not in dispute that at the expiration of the 120 days the respondent did not pay to the appellant the balance of N1 million. Did the appellant, at that state refund the N1 million already paid to discharge the agreement?
The appellant had in paragraph 6 of his pleadings averred that he offered to refund back to the respondent the N1 million already paid to him on or about the 27th October, 1992 which offer the respondent refused to accept saying that he will keep two plots for the N1 million he paid. He also testified that he offered to pay the respondent N1 million which payment the respondent refused to accept. However, under cross-examination he made the following statements “I have not paid that money up till today” (page 66 lines 37-38) “I did not return the N1 million to defendant after 120 days” (page 68 lines 18-19).
It follows therefore that up to the time the appellant testified before the trial court, he had not paid back the N1 million paid to him by the respondent under the terms of the agreement. I have examined exh. P7, which appellant is contending is a letter from the respondent refusing to accept the money from him; it is not so and does not seem to convey anything which would be of value to the court in reaching its decision. It should not have been admitted as it was handwritten in Hausa, a note which seems to convey no meaning to a third party, may be to the appellant to whom it was sent. Be that as it may, the appellant had not discharged the burden of proving his assertion that he paid back to the respondent the N1 million he received from the agreement after the expiration of 120 days. The trial Judge was therefore right to found as it did, “throughout the proceedings I have not seen any evidence that the plaintiff has made such payment to the defendant”
The trial Judge had painstakingly assessed the evidence as was adduced before him by both parties before arriving at the finding – “throughout the proceedings I had not seen any evidence that the plaintiff had made such payment to the defendant”. To my mind that finding is not perverse but based on what was before the court. An appellate court will not interfere with the findings of a trial court unless it is perverse or a miscarriage of justice has been occasioned Umesie & Ors. v. Onuaguluchi & Ors. 1995 12 SCNJ 120, UAC of Nigeria Ltd. v. Fasheyitan & Another 1998 7 SCNJ 179.
It follows therefore that the agreement the parties entered into as at 16/05/92 was for the sale of the 4 plots indicated in the agreement for N2 million. The appellant was given consideration of half the amount N1 million. The respondent had not paid the balance of N1 million neither had the appellant refunded the N1 million he received to discharged his obligation under the agreement at the expiration of 120 days as stipulated in the agreement. That brings us to the second issue and another subsequent agreement exhibit D3. For a better understanding of exh. D3, it is produced below;
21/10/92
A Munzali A. Dantata,
77 Ibrahim Taiwo Road,
P.O. Box 12315,
Kano.
Dear Alhaji,
RE: LOAN/PURCHASE OF LAND AT ABUJA
I will like to acknowledge the receipt of certificate of occupancy No. FCT/ABU/KN/1054 and letter of grant of certificate of occupancy No. MFTC/LA/90/MISC. 5914 as full payment of the loan as per our agreement of 16th May, 1992. By this letter, I am confirming to you that the loan is fully paid with the two properties although the agreement said that I should balance you with (one million naira) for the four plots.
Alhaji, please send me all the document in file, from application to date, including receipts for payment of the application, etc. Also a letter from all states to the Land Office, Abuja advising them to release to me the certificate of occupancy No. MFCT/LA/90/MISC. 5914 when it is out.
I pray for you to get a good price for the remaining plots.I will appreciate it if you will sign a copy of this letter, and Abdullahi Mohammed Saminu to sign as your witness. On my side Alhaji Garba Damwaire will also sign. The two former witness and Deed of assignment will be prepared and send (sic) to you in due course.
Yours sincerely,
Signed Signed
Alh. Abdulkadir Sanusi Dantata A Munzali A Dantata
Signed Signed
- Garba Danwaire Abdullahi Moh. Saminu
(Witness) (Witness)
While testifying before the lower court the appellant had this to say;
“……………. When I returned the loan of N1, 000,000 the defendant refused to accept the money claiming that two of the four properties had been sold to him for N1 million.” (Page 56 lines 23-26).
And further under cross-examination at page 68 lines 19-23 he said;
“I did not agree to hand over to defendant two plots in place of the N1 million but he made that demand after 120 days. I handed two plots to him. I signed an agreement to that effect. Yes, this here is the agreement I signed with the defendant. I signed it over duress.”
And exhibit D3 was then tendered by the defence through him.
The DW1 testified that the respondent was in possession of the certificate of occupancy of Asokoro plot in respect of the transaction in exh. D3 between the parties. The trial court had this to say exh. D3 (page 123 lines 31 – 40)
“Two weeks after, on 21/10/92, exhibit D3 was executed by the parties. That act in my view, constitutes further proof that the plaintiff of his own free will and on a follow up to exhibit signed exh. D3 in which he agreed with the defendant’s proposal varying their initial contract, exhibit P1 by agreeing to sell two plots covered by certificate of occupancy No. FCT/ABU/KN/1054 and letter of grant No. MFCT/LA/90/MISC /5914 as full payment of the part payment of the N1 million he (plaintiff) received from defendant which he failed to return as per original agreement.”
I have already held elsewhere in this judgment that the agreement between the parties as evidenced by exh. P1 had effectively been varied by exh. D3 and the consideration for so doing is the mutual abandonment of existing right under exhibit P1. In the light of that holding, I do not accept the view as suggested by learned counsel for plaintiff that there was no consideration paid to plaintiff. I do not also accept that no document was executed in favour of defendant in respect of the plot in issue. I accept the view of learned counsel for defendant that all equitable interests over plot 1054 Asokoro have passed to the defendant he having paid full value for same irrespective of the fact that the plaintiff had refused to execute the deed of assignment.
“I hold that there had been valid sale of the plots mentioned in exh. D3 (including the Asokoro plot) to the defendant.”
In my view, that is the only correct assessment any Judge could have arrived at based on the facts that were presented before the trial Judge in this case. I need only add, in reply to the contention of the learned counsel to the appellant that exhibit D3 being a registerable instrument having purported to transfer or confer rights and interest in land by virtue of S.2 of the Land Instrument Registration Cap 58 Laws of Northern Nigeria 1963, and having not been so registered the trial court was in error to have admitted same in evidence.
Indeed, it is trite, that any instrument requiring registration by virtue of s. 15 of the Land Instrument Registration Law Cap 58 Laws of Northern Nigeria 1963 remains ineffectual unless and until it is registered – Amankra v. Zankley (1963) All NLR 304. It follows that it cannot be accepted in evidence unless it is so registered.
However, in this instance, exh. D3 was signed by the two parties, the appellant a legal practitioner who knows the implication of signing documents. The certificate of occupancy in respect of the plot in question was handed over to the respondent by the appellant of his own free will and evidence was led to show that the deed of assignment was drawn up but was torn by the appellant. The only conclusion one can arrive at from the facts of this case is that the appellant intended to sell the plot in question, he entered into the agreement with his eyes open received consideration of N1 million which he never returned to the respondent, equity will here come in to stop him from the retracting from the agreement. He cannot be allowed at this stage, having benefited, to refuse to give consideration to the respondent by passing title of the property to him. Exhibit D3 even if not admissible as a registrable instrument is admissible to show that the appellants had passed title of the land in dispute to the respondent and is therefore admissible.
This case is on all fours with the case of Okafor v. Soyemi (2001) NWLR (Pt. 698) 465 where the Lagos Judicial Division of this court per Aderemi , JCA has this to say at pages 574, 475 and 476:
“Any instrument requiring registration remains ineffectual unless and until it is registered. Indeed by virtue of section 15 of the Lands Instrument Registration Law, no instrument shall be pleased (sic) [pleaded] or given in evidence unless such instrument shall have been registered………………………………………………………………….
However, in appropriate cases, as in the instant case, where there is incontrovertible evidence that the appellant signed the power of attorney such instrument is capable of transferring an equitable interest ……………………….
In a case of this type it is the intent rather than the form that a judex is enjoined by equity to look at.”
In the circumstances this appeal cannot stand as it lacks merit and I hereby dismiss it. I affirm the judgment of the FCT High Court Abuja delivered on the 19th day of May, 1998 dismissing all the appellant’s claim before it. I award costs assessed as N5, 000 to the respondent.
CROSS-APPEAL
The cross-appeal is an appeal against the dismissing of the cross-appellant’s counter-claim before the trial court. The trial court at page 128 of the records said;
“The defendant, throughout these proceedings did not appear in court. He did not testify in the main case and led nothing in support of his counter-claim. The testimony of DW1, the personal assistant of the defendant did nothing to support the counter-claim. I accept submission of learned counsel that the defendant has abandoned the counter claim and I consequently strike it out.”
As was mentioned above the cross-appellant did not testify on his counter-claim, the person who testified on his behalf was not seized of the facts the counter-claimant was basing his claim on. The court had no other alternative than to find and hold that the counter-claimant had abandoned his claim.
It is trite that where pleadings are not supported by evidence they are deemed as abandoned Edet v. Eyo (1999) 6 NWLR (Pt. 605) 1; FCDA v. Alhaji Naibi (1990) All NLR 475.
By virtue of section 136 and 137 of the Evidence Act, he who asserts must prove. Here the cross-appellant had failed to testify to prove the facts he was alleging, the trial court was therefore entitled to throw away his case on those alleged facts – Akin v. Mangu L.G.C. (1996) 4 NWLR (Pt. 441) 207; Okaroafor v. Abawaronini 1996 2 NWLR part 430 281, Kalgo v. Kalgo (1999) 6 NWLR (Pt.608) 639, the fact that the cross-respondent did not reply to the counter-claim entitling the cross-appellant to judgment on his counter-claim will not come to his aid.
The claim of the cross appellant before the trial court falls within the ambit of order 27 r. 8(1) of the High Court of the Federal Territory, Abuja Civil Procedure where before a party can get default judgment when the other party fails to file a statement of defence to the claim, that party has to apply to the court for judgment. In the instant case there, was no such application before the court, the cross-appellant was therefore not entitled to judgment.
The cross-appeal must therefore fail and I so hold. It is hereby dismissed with N2, 000 cost to the cross-respondent.
HON. JUSTICE DAHIRU MUSDAPHER, JCA: I agree.
MUHAMMED SAIFULLAHI MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE: I had the advantage of a preview of the judgment of my learned Lord Bulkachuwa JCA. I am in full agreement with her that the appeal lacks merit and its hereby dismissed. Judgment of the High Court F.C.T. Abuja is un-assailable and it is hereby affirmed. The cross appeal fails for the reasons stated in the lead judgment which I adopt as mine. Same is dismissed. I endorse the order as to costs.
Cases referred to in the judgment.
Akin v. Mangu L.G.C. (1996) 4 NWLR (Pt. 441) 207;
Amankra v. Zankley (1963) All NLR 304.
Banque Genervoise De Commerce Et. De Credit v. C.I.A. Mardi Isola Spetsal Ltd. (No.2) (1962) All N.L.R. 565.
Edet v. Eyo (1999) 6 NWLR (Pt. 605) 1.
FCDA v. Alhaji Naibi (1990) All NLR 475.
Kalgo v. Kalgo (1999) 6 NWLR (Pt. 608) 639.
Okafor v.Soyemi (2001) NWLR (Pt. 698) 465.
Okaroafor v. Abawaronini (1996) 2 NWLR (Pt.430) 281.
Olanlege v. CAN Ltd. (1996) 7 SCNJ 145.
UAC of Nigeria Ltd. v. Fasheyitan (1998) 7 SCNJ 179.
Umesie v. Onuaguluchi (1995) 12 SCNJ 120.
Statutes referred to in the judgment
Land Instrument Registration Laws of Northern Nigeria 1963 Cap. 58
Evidence Act Cap. 112 LFN 1990, Ss.136/ 137.
Rule of court referred to in the judgment
High Court of Federal Capital Territory Abuja (Civil Procedure) Rules Order 27 r. 8(1).
