Abdullahi & Ors V. El-rufai & Ors (2021)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI, J.S.C.

The Appellants by way of writ of summons filed at the High Court of Justice of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, sought the following reliefs against the Respondents: –

“1. A declaration that the decision by the Federal Government of Nigeria to sell off all its houses, more particularly those occupied by the plaintiffs as shown in the schedule hereto, is an act which smacks of corruption, and consequently it is unenforceable, null, void and of no effect whatsoever.

2. An order restraining the defendants either by themselves, servants, agents, privies, assigns however referred from doing anything or taking any steps towards the execution of the decision or policy of the Federal Government to sell the houses occupied by public servants or officers more particularly the houses occupied by the plaintiffs.

IN THE ALTERNATIVE:

​3. A declaration that there exists a valid and subsisting contract between the plaintiffs and the defendants for the sale to the plaintiffs of their respective houses as specified in the SCHEDULE attached to this Writ of Summons and that the parties are legally bound to exercise their rights and obligations under the contract.

4. A declaration that the Public Notice issued by the Federal Government of Nigeria as contained in the Publication of the This Day Newspaper dated 2nd September, 2005 in volume II No. 3785 or such other Notice, Regulations or Guidelines that are issued in disregard to the aforesaid contract constitutes a breach of that contract and they are consequently not binding on the plaintiffs’ herein.
5. A declaration that the official residences of the plaintiffs as specified in the Schedule to this Writ of Summons, cannot be made the subject of a public auction by the Federal Government of Nigeria during the subsistence of the contract for sale of the said houses to the plaintiffs.
6. An order that the defendants, either by themselves, servants, agents, assigns, officials, officers, privies, attorneys or delegates, by whatever name referred or however described, are stopped from taking any unilateral decision with respect to the houses specified in the schedule hereto and sold to the plaintiffs, contrary to the terms and conditions of the contract subsisting between the parties in respect therefore.
7. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants either by themselves, servants, agents, privies, assigns, officers or officials, by whatever name referred or howsoever described from interfering with the occupation by the plaintiffs of the properties in the schedule hereto, or from doing anything or taking any steps contrary to or but not restricted to their peaceful and quiet possession.
8. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, their servants, agents, functionaries, privies, whomsoever, from forcefully dispossessing the plaintiffs of their official residences in this matter, and from selling off the said residences otherwise than in compliance with the plaintiffs’ vested rights of first option of refusal of purchase of the properties.
9. Cost of this action.”

At the conclusion of the trial, the trial Court in its judgment dismissed the Appellants’ claim.

​Dissatisfied by the decision of the trial Court, the Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division. The lower Court in its judgment delivered on the 12th day of August, 2015, dismissed the Appellants’ appeal, and upheld the decision of the trial Court.

The Appellants still dissatisfied by the judgment of the lower Court appealed to this Court via notice of appeal filed on 12/10/2015. The Appellants’ brief of argument was filed on the 12/06/2017 while the Respondents’ brief of argument was filed on the 18/12/2020.

The parties adopted and relied on their respective brief of argument at the hearing of the appeal.

From the three (3) grounds of appeal, the following two (2) issues are distilled for determination:

1. Whether the lower Court was right when it held that there was no valid contract despite the preponderance of evidence led by the Appellants at the trial Court. (Distilled from Grounds one and three of Notice of Appeal)
2. Whether or not the lower Court was right in law when it held that the appellants’ contention that the case put forward by them at the trial Court was the agreement between the Respondents and the appellants to make offers for sale of houses on a first option of refusal was not borne by reliefs sought by them at the trial Court. (Distilled from Ground 2 of the Notice of Appeal) The Respondents herein adopted the two issues for determination as formulated by the Appellants.

I shall consider this appeal on the basis of the two issues aforementioned.

APPELLANTS’ SUBMISSION

On issue one, Learned Counsel submitted that the Appellants’ case at the trial Court was that by virtue of Exhibits B, B1-B95, C, F and G there was a binding contract between the Respondents and Appellants individually granting them a “first right of refusal” to the purchase of their respective houses which the Respondents failed to respect. He added that the trial Judge dismissed the case of the Appellants notwithstanding the fact that all the elements of a contract were present in the contract subsisting between both parties.

It was further submitted that the learned trial Judge’s findings that the agreement between the Appellants and the Respondents was inchoate and that there was no offer made to the Appellants capable of being accepted is contrary to the evidence on record and the lower Court nevertheless still affirmed the finding of the trial Court. He added that the contract which the Appellants alleged existed was one that should have given birth to the issuance of letters of offer on the basis of the First Right of Refusal. In other words, the Appellants must be given an offer, which would contain details such as the price and the terms of payments.