Search LawGlobal Hub

Young Shall Grow Motors Ltd. V. Onalada & Ors (2020)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, J.S.C.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, delivered on 31/12/2013, unanimously dismissing the Appellant’s claim and affirming the judgment of the High Court of Lagos, delivered on 6/5/2005.

The Appellant, a transport company and a tenant of the 1st-4th Respondents, sued them at the trial High Court claiming an order of specific performance of the agreement for the sale of the property to her situate at No. 1, Ikorodu Road, Jibowu, Yaba, Lagos.

The 1st-4th Respondents’ defence was that they went into another transaction because the Appellant failed to consummate the transaction and that warranted the 1st-4th Respondents’ decision to sell the land to the 5th Respondent.

The 5th Respondent in this appeal counter-claimed for an order of declaration that he is the rightful owner of the property in question by virtue of the transaction between him and 1st-4th Respondents, amongst other reliefs.

​At the end of the trial, the Court held that the 5th Respondent is the rightful owner of the property by virtue of his transaction with the 1st -4th Respondents and entitled to the right of occupancy in respect of the said property, and dismissed the Appellant’s claim.

Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal and the Court below unanimously dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the High Court. The Appellant has further appealed to this Honourable Court.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The issues for determination, I shall extrapolate from the 4 issues formulated by the Appellant with those of the Respondents are as follows:

1. Whether there was no valid and subsisting contract of sale of the property in dispute between the Appellant and the 1st-4th Respondents to transfer title to the Appellant.
2. Whether the 5th Respondent was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.
3. Whether the failure of the lower Court to consider the Appellant’s issues 2 and 3 did not amount to denial of fair hearing.

ISSUE ONE:

Whether there was no valid and subsisting contract of sale of the property in dispute between the Appellant and the 1st-4th Respondents to transfer title to the Appellant.

The Appellant’s issues 1 and 2 fit under this issue for consideration.

The Appellant’s main argument under this issue is that the lower Court was wrong when it held that photocopies of bank draft could not take the position of consideration sufficient to induce a reasonable party into contract. He submitted that what the 1st-4th Respondents are contesting is that the photocopies of the drafts delivered to them are not legal tender and as such no consideration passed from the Appellant to the 1st-4th Respondents with respect to the property in dispute.

The Appellant’s learned Counsel urged this Honourable Court to hold that the Appellant furnished consideration in form of concrete promise (the issuance of a Zenith Bank draft for 18 million requested by the 1st -4th Respondents as purchase price) and the delivery of the photocopies of the said Zenith Bank draft to the 1st-4th Respondents’ solicitor on 7/5/2001 for sighting represents something of value in the eye of the law. He further urged the Court to allow this appeal as the loss of the Appellant cannot be remedied in damages having been a sitting tenant in the property in dispute since 1998 and still in possession as of date.