DAMBATTA v. KABUGA & ANOR
(2022)LCN/16315(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(KANO JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Monday, July 04, 2022
CA/KN/251/2020
Before Our Lordships:
Ita George Mbaba Justice of the Court of Appeal
Boloukuromo Moses Ugo Justice of the Court of Appeal
Usman Alhaji Musale Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
UMAR SABO DAMBATTA APPELANT(S)
And
1. ALHAJI SULEIMAN ALIYU KABUGA 2. HAJIYA SA’A MAI ABINCI RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO:
COMBINATON OF TWO OR MORE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TO GENERATE AN ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION
See also Agu Vs Duru & Ors (2021) LPELR–53212 (CA); A.G. Imo State & Anor Vs Imo Rubber Estate Ltd &Ors (2019) LPELR–47579 CA, where we held:
“The law is trite, that whereas Appellant can combine two or more grounds of appeal to generate an issue for the determination of appeal, he cannot split a ground of appeal to raise several issues for determination of the appeal. That is to say, that the moment an Appellant has distilled an issue from a given ground(s) of appeal, he cannot, thereafter, use the said (used) ground(s) of appeal to generate another issue for the determination of the appeal, as that would amount to the proliferation of issues. See the case of A.G. Imo State Vs Imo Rubber Estate Ltd and (Ors) (2019) LPELR-47579 (CA); Phillips Vs Eba Odan Commercial & Industrial Co. Ltd (2012) LPELR-9718 (SC); Ugo Vs Obiekwe (1989) 2 SC (Pt. 11) 41. Of course, it is trite, that once Appellant has distilled an issue for determination of appeal from a given ground(s) of appeal, that ground (or grounds) of appeal ceases to be available to donate another issue for determination of the appeal. In that case of A. G. Imo State Vs Imo Rubber Estate Ltd & Ors(supra).” ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A
THE DEFINITION OF A BONA FIDE PURCHASER OF PROPERTY FOR VALUE WITHOUT NOTICE OF ENCUMBRANCES
On who is a bona fide purchaser of property for value, without notice of encumbrances. See the case of Yakubu Vs Ibrahim &Ors (2016) LPELR–41496 (CA); Igwebe Vs Saidashs Int’l Ltd & Anor (2016) LPELR–41188 CA, and Registered Trustees of Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation Retired Staff Association & Ors Vs Bureau of Public Enterprises & Ors (2021) LPELR–55807 CA, where it was held:
“The expression: “a bona fide purchaser for value without notice” simply means a good faith purchaser for value who has paid a stated price for a property without knowledge of existing prior claims or equitable interests. It is therefore for this reason that a bona fide purchaser for value without notice will usually secure a better title over a holder of an equitable or legal interest in a property. See the case of OBIJURU vs. OZIMS (1985) 2 NSCC (PT. 1) 430 AT PP: 441- 442, per BELLO, JSC (as he then was and of blessed memory). See also OHIAERI vs. YUSSUF (2009) 6 NWLR (PT.1137) 207 AT P. 228, PARAS. B-C. In OBIJURU vs. OZIM (Supra) the apex Court per BELLO, JSC had this to say on the subject: “On the authorities, the Respondent can only show a better right to possess if he is a purchaser of the legal Estate for value without notice of the Appellant’s equitable interest: Taylor v. Arthur (1947) 12 W.A.C.A. 179, Ogunbambi v. Abowaba (1951) 13 W.A.C.A. 222 at 224, Akingbade v. Elemosho (1964) 1 All N.L.R. 154 and Oni v. Arimoro (Supra).” Per OHO, JCA. ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A.
ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): Appellant filed this appeal against the decision of Kano State High Court in Suit No. K/528/2014, delivered on 2nd March, 2020 by Hon. Justice Usman Mallan Na’Abba, whereof the learned trial Judge resolved the case against the Plaintiff (Appellant), granted title to the 2nd Defendant, but ordered 1st Defendant to refund the sum of N2.3Million to the Plaintiff, being money collected from the Plaintiff on the property, with 10% cost interest, from the date of judgment – 2/3/20.
At the trial the Plaintiff (now Appellant) had sought the following reliefs:
(1) Declaration that the Plaintiff is the rightful owner of a plot of land No.393, lying and situate at Tudun Yola Quarters, Gwale Local Government, Kano State, having purchased same from the 1st Defendant since 22nd of September, 2011.
(2) Declaration that encroachment, trespass, erection upon the Plaintiff’s building, title and allegation of ownership by the 2nd Defendant is illegal and unjustifiable.
(3) An Order of injunction restraining the Defendants, servants, agents, privies and any other person from demolition, encroachment, trespassing into the Plaintiff’s plot/uncompleted building, pending the determination of this suit.
(4) General damages of N5,000,000.00 against the defendants, jointly and severally; cost of N500,000.00 and any other relief(s) in the interest of justice. (See pages 4–5 of the Records of Appeal).
The two Defendants (Respondents) filed separate pleadings and the 2nd Defendant Counter-claimed, as follows, as per page 83 of the Records of Appeal:
“The 2nd Defendant/Counter Claimant’s (sic) claims against the Plaintiff and 1st Defendant as follows:
(1) A Declaration that the 2nd Defendant/Counter-Claimant is the lawful owner of plot No. TP (KAS) 215A/393A situate at Tudun Yola, 50 by 50 (length and breadth), Kano State.
(2) An Order restraining both the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant, their agents or privies whatsoever from further trespassing or encroaching upon the plot.
(3) An Order for payment of damages against the Plaintiff/Respondent in the sum of N500,000.00.
(4) An Order for payment of damages against 1st Defendant/Respondent to the 2ndDefendant/Counter-Claimant in N500,000.00.
(5) An Order against both the Plaintiff/Respondent and 1st Defendant/Respondent for payment of cost of filing, defending and prosecuting the defense and Counter-Claim.
(6) Any other Order as this honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances…
After hearing the case and considering the evidence and addresses of Counsel, the trial Judge held:
“I have given passionate consideration to the evidence in proof of title by the Plaintiff and I am of the view that the Plaintiff has not prove (sic) the title to the land in dispute and therefore cannot succeed on his claim. The 1st and 2nd Issues are therefore resolved against the Plaintiff.
On the 3rd Issue of whether the 2nd Defendant have (sic) established the sale of the land in dispute between herself and the 1st Defendant one most (sic) look at the evidence given in respect of this fact. It is the evidence of 2nd Defendant that she purchased the land at the rate of N1.9 Million and same was pain (sic) in the presence of witnesses. DW2 further said after the sale the 1st Defendant did not have (sic) her with the title documents, because according to him, it was burnt when fire enjuiced (sic) his house. According to DW2, after fulfilled (sic) promised to give her the title documents, she took the 1st Defendant (sic) Sharia Court, Post Office, where the sale was confirmed. DW2 tendered the sole exhibit in this case which is a writ of possession and confirmation of sale issued by the Sharia Court. Under cross-examination, DW2 said ever since the sale, she has been in possession until when the Plaintiff reported her at R/Zaki Police Station. She also said (sic) started erecting building on the plot since 2013. This piece of evidence which is vital was not challenged. The 1st Defendant did not challenge the fact that he sold the plot to the 2nd Defendant (sic) confirm the sale. Unchallenged evidence is acted upon by the Court, more especially where it intends to show or prove a particular fact which is very vital. I therefore believe the evidence of 2nd Defendant, and I so hold. The fact that the so-called sale to the Plaintiff precede (sic) the sale to the 2nd Defendant notwithstanding because there is no valid sale between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant. The fact that the2nd Defendant was let into possession which the law considered the nineth ten (sic) of the law is enough confirmation that she legally purchased the plot in question and I so hold.
Before ending this, I must comment on the behaviour of the 1st Defendant. The 1st Defendant caused all this problem since 2010. This suit was filed on (sic) the year 2014 and I sought that he (1st Defendant) will end this matter or settle it amicably with the parties by paying back the Plaintiff his money the sum of N2.3Million which even before the institution of this case promise (sic) to do so but failed. Secondly, he did not provide the 2nd Defendant with the original or title documents of the Plot which also promise (sic) to do so since the purchase of plot. The behaviour is something which need to be considered by this Court, people should fear God the Almighty as he will judge of (sic) us of actions.
In the final result, there will be declaration in favour of the 2nd Defendant and I hereby do so. I further declared (sic) that the 2nd Defendant is the rightful owner of the subject matter in dispute having purchase (sic) same legally from the 1st Defendant. However, I will in the interest of justice and fair play ordered (sic) the 1st Defendant to forthwith refund the sum of N2.3 Million, being money collected from the Plaintiff with 10% cost interest from today 2/3/20.” See Pages 245–247 of the Records of Appeal.
That is the decision Appellant appealed against, as per the Notice and Grounds of Appeal, filed on 6/3/2020 (pages 253 to 257 of the Records of Appeal), disclosing 2 Grounds of Appeal, Appellant filed his brief of arguments on 26/11/2021 and distilled a lone Issue for the determination of the Appeal, namely:
Whether the lower trial Court has evaluated pieces of evidence placed before delivering its judgment. Grounds 1 and 2.
The 1st Respondent filed no Brief, but the 2nd Respondent filed what she called “REPLY BRIEF OF ARGUMENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT”, on 20/2/21, and donated three more Issues for the determination of the appeal, in addition to the single Issue, raised by the Appellant.
The 2nd Respondent’s Counsel said:
“The Appellant has raised a single Issue for determination… “Whether the lower Court has evaluated pieces of evidence before delivering its judgment…” The 2nd Respondent intends to add three more issues for determination of this Court, to wit:
(1) Whether the proposed sale agreement is self-contradictory, apparently unbelievable and an afterthought, not duly unexecuted (sic) and thus, worthless.
(2) Whether the translated version of the alleged sale agreement is incompetent, incomplete and misleading, thus nonentity.
(3) Whether this Court of Appeal can, considering the fact and circumstances of this appeal, interfere and/or set aside the judgment of the lower Court, which was meritoriously delivered, based on credible evidence led before it. (See Paragraphs 3.1 to 3.5 of the 2nd Respondent’s Brief).
PROLIFERATION OF ISSUES BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
I think the 2nd Respondent’s Counsel erred, greatly, when he distilled multiple issues for determination of the appeal, whereof Appellant raised only 2 grounds of appeal and a single issue for determination. The rule governing arguments of appeals in the appellate Court remains, that a Respondent is bound to conduct his arguments within the confines of the grounds of appeal, raised by the Appellant (except where he (Respondent) had raised a cross-appeal or Respondent’s Notice, whereof he can formulate issues therefrom). And by law, the Issues for determination of appeal cannot outnumber the grounds of appeal! Put differently, Appellant or Respondent cannot split a ground of appeal to generate more than one Issue for determination of appeal. He may, however, combine two or more grounds of appeal to raise an issue for determination and not the other way round. See Agbaso Vs Iwunze & Ors (2014) LPELR – 24108 CA, where it was held:
“A close look at the two new issues, proposed by the 1st to 8th Respondents, would show that they originated from the issues 2 and 4 (page 141 of the Records) formulated by the 1st to 8th Respondents at the lower Court but those issues did not form part of the grounds of appeal by the Appellant. If they were of value to the 1st to 8th Respondents, they had a duty to Cross-appeal on those grounds, to be able to formulate issues on them. Having not Cross-appealed or raised Respondents’ notice of intention to rely on those grounds (not raised by the Appellant), the 1st to 8th Respondents cannot be allowed to raise the said new issues. They are, hereby struck out.”
See also the cases of PML Nig. Ltd Vs FRN (2017) LPELR-43480 SC, where it was held:
“…It argued that since the Respondent did not cross-appeal or file a Respondents Notice in this appeal, it cannot bring in the issue of its appeal against the ruling – Imoniyame Holdings V Soneb Enterprises(2010) 4 NWLR (pt. 1185) 561, Mulina V Usman (2014) 16 NWLR (pt. 1432) 760. It submitted that it is mandatory that a Respondent, who has not cross-appealed, must confine himself to the Grounds of Appeal in formulating his issues for determination; and that such a Respondent either adopts the issues as formulated by the Appellant or distills his own issues, which must arise from or relate to the Grounds of Appeal – Oke V. Maja (2014) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1394) 374.”
See also Agu Vs Duru & Ors (2021) LPELR–53212 (CA); A.G. Imo State & Anor Vs Imo Rubber Estate Ltd & Ors (2019) LPELR–47579 CA, where we held:
“The law is trite, that whereas Appellant can combine two or more grounds of appeal to generate an issue for the determination of appeal, he cannot split a ground of appeal to raise several issues for determination of the appeal. That is to say, that the moment an Appellant has distilled an issue from a given ground(s) of appeal, he cannot, thereafter, use the said (used) ground(s) of appeal to generate another issue for the determination of the appeal, as that would amount to the proliferation of issues. See the case of A.G. Imo State Vs Imo Rubber Estate Ltd and (Ors) (2019) LPELR-47579 (CA); Phillips Vs Eba Odan Commercial & Industrial Co. Ltd (2012) LPELR-9718 (SC); Ugo Vs Obiekwe (1989) 2 SC (Pt. 11) 41. Of course, it is trite, that once Appellant has distilled an issue for determination of appeal from a given ground(s) of appeal, that ground (or grounds) of appeal ceases to be available to donate another issue for determination of the appeal. In that case of A. G. Imo State Vs Imo Rubber Estate Ltd & Ors (supra).”
We have held, repeatedly, that Appellant or Respondent cannot split a ground of appeal to generate two or more Issues for determination of appeal. See the case of NorthWest Petroleum & Gas Co. Ltd & Anor Vs Iloh&Ors (2021) LPELR–55509 CA:
The law is trite, that whereas Appellant can combine two or more grounds of appeal to generate an issue for the determination of appeal, he cannot split a ground of appeal to raise several issues for determination of the appeal. That is to say, that the moment an Appellant has distilled an issue from a given ground(s) of appeal, he cannot, thereafter, use the said (used) ground(s) of appeal to generate another issue for the determination of the appeal, as that would amount to the proliferation of issues. See the case of A.G. Imo State Vs Imo Rubber Estate Ltd and (Ors) (2019) LPELR-47579 (CA); Phillips Vs Eba Odan Commercial & Industrial Co. Ltd (2012) LPELR-9718 (SC); Ugo Vs Obiekwe (1989) 2 SC (Pt. 11) 41. Of course, it is trite, that once Appellant has distilled an issue for determination of appeal from a given ground(s) of appeal, that ground (or grounds) of appeal ceases to be available to donate another issue for determination of the appeal. In that case of A. G. Imo State Vs Imo Rubber Estate Ltd &Ors(supra).
The 2nd Respondent’s Issues for the determination of this appeal are therefore grossly incompetent and are hereby struck out.
RESOLUTION OF THEAPPEAL
The appeal shall therefore be resolved on the single Issue distilled by the Appellant and the argument thereon.
Did the trial Court properly consider the evidence before it, before reaching its decision to refuse the claims of Appellant (though ordering that his payment of N2.3Million be refunded by 1st Respondent) and granting the 2nd Respondent title to the property?
Appellant’s Counsel, T.M. Abdullah Esq, had argued that though appellate Court has no business interfering with the findings of the lower trial Court, it can do so where the findings are perverse and not supported by evidence. He relied on Dakolo Vs Dakolo (2011) ALL FWLR (Pt.592) 1610 at 1616; Tukur Vs UBA (2013) 4 NWLR (Pt.1343) 137; Agala Vs Okusin (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1202) 412; Uli Micro Finance Bank Nig. Ltd Vs Norbert (2018) LPELR–44953 (CA).
On what amounts to perverse finding or decision, Counsel relied on the case of Atolagbe Vs Shorun(1985) LPELR (1985) NWLR (Pt.2) 360, where the Supreme Court said:
“Perverse, simply means persistent in error, different from what is reasonable or required, against weight of evidence. A decision may beperverse where the trial Judge took into account matters which he ought not to have taken into account or where the Judge shuts his eyes to the obvious.”
Counsel said the decision of the trial Court was perverse, causing serious miscarriage of justice on the Appellant; that though the trial Court had come to a finding that the subject matter in dispute (land) had been sold to Appellant by the 1st Respondent, prior to the second sale by the 1st Respondent to the 2nd Respondent (See pages 6–7 of the Records of Appeal and paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Statement of Claim), the Court failed to give him judgment, even when evidence was led to establish that fact, and same was neither contradicted nor challenged by the Respondents; Counsel said that the trial Court even made findings to that effect and ordered the 1st Respondent to refund the money (N2.3 Million) paid by Appellant to 1st Respondent! Counsel said that by law the Court is enjoined to act on unchallenged evidence – Kayili Vs Yilbuk&Ors (2015) LPELR–24323 (SC); Iriri&Ors Vs Erhurhobara& Anor (1991) LPELR–1536 SC.
Counsel referred us to page 50 ofthe Records of Appeal, where the 1st Respondent admitted, under cross-examination, that the subject matter in dispute was sold to the Appellant when the 2nd Respondent informed him (1st Respondent) that she did not want the plot. He said:
“It is true that I did state that I sold the plot in question to the Plaintiff, but I cannot remember the year. It is true that I told the Plaintiff that I lost the title documents of the Plot when fire engage (sic) in my house. The plaintiff said he not interested in any paper evidence the sale because he has somebody in the Ministry of Lands. I gave the Plaintiff some papers showing that I am processing the title document including the letter given to me by Galadima of Kano. It is true that the plot I sold to the 2nd Respondent is related to the one in dispute before this Court. It is true that when the 2nd Defendant said he don’t (sic) want the plot in dispute I sold it to the Plaintiff. It is true that I first sold the plot in dispute to the 1st Respondent (sic) before reselling to the Plaintiff. I cannot remember the year I sold the plot to the 2nd Defendant. I sold the plot adjacent to the plot indispute in the year 2010 to the 2nd Defendant. I first sold the plot in question to the Plaintiff before selling to the Plaintiff (sic). The time between the two sells (sic) is not more than one or two weeks. I did not sold (sic) the subject matter in dispute to the 2nd Defendant in 2010. I did inform the 2nd Defendant that I earlier sold the plot to the Plaintiff and he is said he is not interested. I sold the plot to the 2nd Defendant at the rate of N1.9 Million, while I sold the it to the Plaintiff at the rate of N2.3Million. I did collect both the money from the Plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant. I did not pay the Plaintiff his money up till now. When I sold the same plot to the 2nd Defendant the Plaintiff reported to the Police at R/Zaki.” (See Pages 50–51 of the Records) (Underlining Mine)
In her evidence, under cross-examination, the 2nd Defendant said:
“I don’t know whether the 1st Defendant first sold the place in dispute to the Plaintiff… It was after 4 years that the Plaintiff reported to the Police Station at R/Zaki. At the time of the sell (sic) was conducted, the 1st Defendant did not give me a writtensale agreement 1st Defendant – As at the time I bought the plot it was fenced. When I bought the place, there was a gate. As the time I bought the plot, I am not aware of any transaction on the plot. When I bought the plot I did not know any transaction on it… when I bought the plot I constructed building on it and the Plaintiff did not come to me until after about 4 years…” See pages 54–55 of the Records
With such elucid evidence from the 1st Respondent, who played the criminal role of selling the property to the two claimants, first to Plaintiff (Appellant) and later to 2nd Defendant (Respondent) and stating that he told the 2nd Respondent of the earlier sale to the Appellant; and with the evidence from 2nd Respondent that she met the plot fenced with a gate and that Appellant reported her to the Police when she went into the land, I find it difficult to believe the 2nd Respondent, that she did not know of any other transaction on the land at the time she paid N1.9 Million to the 1st Defendant on the property. The things the 2nd Respondent met on ground (fenced land with a gate and uncompleted building) should havewarned her to do a search on the land to uncover the possible fraudulent tendencies of the 1st Respondent, especially as she was not given any document of title to the land!
I therefore find it very curious and surprising, that with such evidence and findings of the trial Court, that Appellant was the first to buy the land from 1st Respondent, at the cost of N2.3 Million, the trial Court could still say:
“The Plaintiff has not prove (sic) (proved) the title to the land in dispute and therefore cannot succeed on his claim.” (Page 245 of the Records.
It is rather strange and perverse, in my view, for the trial Judge to grant title to the secondary buyer, who was aware of the existing encumbrance on the land, at the time she made payment to the fraudster (1st Respondent)! The trial Court was therefore not acting judiciously and judicially, or correctly, in my opinion, when it said on page 246 of the Records:
“I therefore believe the evidence of 2nd Defendant that she legally purchase (sic) the land from the 1st Defendant and I so hold. The fact that the so-called sale to the Plaintiff precede (sic) the sale to the 2ndDefendant notwithstanding, because there is no valid sale between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant. The fact that the 2nd Defendant was let into possession which the law considered the nineth ten (sic) of the law is enough confirmation that she legally purchased the plot in question and I so hold.”
The above, in my opinion, was a very absurd and perverse reasoning. I think the trial Judge was standing the law on its head.
A purchaser of property, who has notice of existing interest or encumbrance on the property, can only have himself to blame for allowing himself to be defrauded. See the case of Best Nig. Ltd Vs Blackwood Hodge Nig. Ltd & Anor (2011) LPELR–776 (SC), where it was held:
“A bona fide purchaser for value is one who has purchased a property for valuable consideration without notice of any prior right or title, which if upheld will derogate from the title which he has purported to acquire.” Per Fabiyi, JSC
In the case of Mohammed Vs Mohammed & Anor (2011) LPELR–3729 CA, my Lord Ogunwumiju, JCA (as she then was) held:
Indeed the whole basis of the equitable principle of bona fide purchaserfor value without notice is to protect a purchaser from the fraud of his vendor per Mbanefo F. J. in the case of OMOSANYA v. ANIFOWOSHE (1995) 4 FSC Pg.94 at 99. The rule is that, if a purchaser fails to investigate title at all, he is fixed with constructive notice of everything that he would have discovered had he investigated the whole title. See also ODWUKWE v. ADMINSTRATOR GENERAL (1978) 1 SC 25 at Pg 30 per Obaseki, JSC. In this case, the Appellant never consulted with the 1st Respondent before the purchase. He merely acted on the presumption that “all was well” and the representation made to him by the 2nd Respondent. In the case of ANIMASHAUN V. OLOJO (1990) 6 NWLR Pt.154 111 at 122-123 per Obaseki JSC explicitly dealt with the issue of ‘notice’ where the three types of Notices were defined as follows: 1. Actual Notice: a person has actual notice of all facts of which he has actual knowledge however that knowledge was acquired. 2. Constructive Notice: the Court of chancery insisted that a purchaser should inquire about equitable interests with no less diligence than about legal interest which they could ignore at their own peril. 3. Imputed Notice: if apurchaser employs an agent, any actual or constructive notice which the agent receives is imputed to the purchaser. The fact of the matter here is that the Appellant had acquired interest from the 2nd Respondent before the 1st Respondent took the matter to Court.
On who is a bona fide purchaser of property for value, without notice of encumbrances. See the case of Yakubu Vs Ibrahim &Ors (2016) LPELR–41496 (CA); Igwebe Vs Saidashs Int’l Ltd & Anor (2016) LPELR–41188 CA, and Registered Trustees of Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation Retired Staff Association &Ors Vs Bureau of Public Enterprises &Ors (2021) LPELR–55807 CA, where it was held:
“The expression: “a bona fide purchaser for value without notice” simply means a good faith purchaser for value who has paid a stated price for a property without knowledge of existing prior claims or equitable interests. It is therefore for this reason that a bona fide purchaser for value without notice will usually secure a better title over a holder of an equitable or legal interest in a property. See the case of OBIJURU vs. OZIMS (1985) 2 NSCC (PT. 1) 430 AT PP: 441- 442, per BELLO, JSC (as he then was and of blessed memory). See also OHIAERI vs. YUSSUF (2009) 6 NWLR (PT.1137) 207 AT P. 228, PARAS. B-C. In OBIJURU vs. OZIM (Supra) the apex Court per BELLO, JSC had this to say on the subject: “On the authorities, the Respondent can only show a better right to possess if he is a purchaser of the legal Estate for value without notice of the Appellant’s equitable interest: Taylor v. Arthur (1947) 12 W.A.C.A. 179, Ogunbambi v. Abowaba (1951) 13 W.A.C.A. 222 at 224, Akingbade v. Elemosho (1964) 1 All N.L.R. 154 and Oni v. Arimoro (Supra).” Per OHO, JCA.
I do not think the 2nd Respondent can qualify as bona fide purchaser for value, without notice, in this case. I therefore see merit in this appeal and resolve the Issue for the Appellant.
I set aside the decision of the trial Court, granting title to the 2nd Respondent. I rather grant the reliefs 1, 2 and 3 to the Appellant (as Plaintiff at the Court below), namely:
(1) A declaration that the Plaintiff is the rightful owner of the plot of land – No. 393 lying and situate at Tudun Yola Quarters, Gwale Local Government, Kano State having purchased same from the1st Defendant, since 22nd September, 2011.
(2) A declaration that the encroachment, trespass, erection upon the Plaintiff’s building, title and allegation of ownership by the 2nd Defendant is illegal and unjustifiable.
(3) An Order of injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents or privies from futher encroachment or trespass on the land.
I also award general damages to Plaintiff (Appellant) against the Defendant, in the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Naira (N500,000.00), who also has a duty to refund the N1.9MilIion he collected from the 2nd Defendant to her.
BOLOUKUROMO MOSES UGO, J.C.A.: I had a preview of the leading judgment of my learned brother ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A. I am in agreement with his Lordship’s reasoning and conclusion. I also allow the appeal.
I abide by all the consequential orders contained in the leading judgment including that as to costs.
USMAN ALHAJI MUSALE, J.C.A.: I have read in draft, the judgment delivered by my learned brother ITA G. MBABA, JCA in this appeal. I entirely agree with the judgment and the way theissues were treated by My Lord. I adopt the reasoning and conclusion reached as mine and find that the appeal is meritorious. The appeal is equally allowed by me.
I abide by the consequential orders made therein.
Appearances:
T.M. ABDULLAH ESQ For Appellant(s)
NASIR ABDURAHMAN ESQ FOR 1st RESPONDENT
M.A. ABDULLAHI ESQ FOR 2ND RESPONDENTS For Respondent(s)
