IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORYIN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORYIN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORYIN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY

HOLDEN AT NYANYA HOLDEN AT NYANYA HOLDEN AT NYANYA HOLDEN AT NYANYA ---- ABUJAABUJAABUJAABUJA

THIS THIS THIS THIS TUTUTUTUESDAYESDAYESDAYESDAY,,,, THE THE THE THE 15151515THTHTHTH DAY OF DAY OF DAY OF DAY OF MAYMAYMAYMAY, 2012, 2012, 2012, 2012

BEFORE:BEFORE:BEFORE:BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE UGOCHUKWU A. OGAKWU HON. JUSTICE UGOCHUKWU A. OGAKWU HON. JUSTICE UGOCHUKWU A. OGAKWU HON. JUSTICE UGOCHUKWU A. OGAKWU ---- JUDGEJUDGEJUDGEJUDGE

BETWEEN:BETWEEN:BETWEEN:BETWEEN: SUIT NO. FCT/HC/CV/SUIT NO. FCT/HC/CV/SUIT NO. FCT/HC/CV/SUIT NO. FCT/HC/CV/647/2010647/2010647/2010647/2010

LADI STEPHEN .....................LADI STEPHEN .....................LADI STEPHEN .....................LADI STEPHEN ........................................................................................................................................ PLAINTIFF... PLAINTIFF... PLAINTIFF... PLAINTIFF

ANDANDANDAND

1.1.1.1. STEPHEN AYEGBA STEPHEN AYEGBA STEPHEN AYEGBA STEPHEN AYEGBA ................................................................ DEFENDANT........ DEFENDANT........ DEFENDANT........ DEFENDANTSSSS

2.2.2.2. ASO SAVINGS & LOANSASO SAVINGS & LOANSASO SAVINGS & LOANSASO SAVINGS & LOANS

JUDGMENTJUDGMENTJUDGMENTJUDGMENT

There was a marital union between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant. The said marital union has since come to an end. There

are however five children of the marriage. During the subsistence

of the marriage, the Federal Government Policy on Monetization and Sale of Federal Government Houses was introduced. The

Plaintiff’s case is that she bidded for and was the preferred bidder

for the property situate at Block 10, Flat 5, Tamale Street, Wuse, Abuja. She says that the 1st Defendant, without her knowledge

and consent, took away the title documents for the said house and

used the same to take a loan facility from the 2nd Defendant, depositing the original title documents of the house with the 2nd Defendant. It is her case that sometime in 2008 some officers of

the 2nd Defendant visited the house to inspect the same and that

when she demanded for an explanation from them she was told

that she had used the house as collateral for a loan. She

maintained that she had not taken any loan from the 2nd Defendant and that when she confronted the 1st Defendant he became

furious and unbearable culminating in his physically assaulting her

and later divorced her. She says that the 1st Defendant has since

2

been trying to forcefully eject her from the house. She therefore

claims the following reliefs:

1. An order of injunction restraining the Defendants either by themselves or by their agents, assigns or any person howsoever claiming through them, from selling or assigning Block 10, Flat 5, Tamale Street, Wuse, Abuja to anybody or persons.

2. An order of injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd Defendants

either by themselves or by their agents, assigns or any person howsoever claiming through them from asserting any right of ownership over Block 10, Flat 5, Tamale Street, Wuse, Abuja.

3. An order of injunction restraining the 1st Defendant either by

himself or by his agents, assigns or any person whosoever claiming through him from ejecting the Plaintiff or her children from Block 10, Flat 5, Tamale Street, Wuse, Abuja.

4. An order of this Honourable Court directing the 1st and 2nd

Defendants to return the original copies of all the title documents relating to Block 10, Flat 5, Tamale Street, Wuse, Abuja especially the letter of offer to winning bidder dated 13th July 2006 to the Plaintiff or her agents.

5. A declaration that Block 10, Flat 5, Tamale Street belongs to

the Plaintiff having bidded and paid for the house. 6. A declaration that the Plaintiff did not take any loan or enter

into any contractual agreement with 2nd Defendant or anybody whatsoever.

The 1st Defendant’s case is that he was the purchaser of a Federal Government House situate at Asokoro which he later sold and

that as he was not qualified to bid for a second Federal Government House, he used the name of his wife, the Plaintiff, to

bid for the house at Block 10, Flat 5, Tamale Street, (now Mubende Street) Zone 3, Wuse, Abuja. He said that all payments in respect

3

of the house were made by him from the account of his company, LOGIC VENTURES, a business name of which he is the sole

partner and into which account he deposited part of the proceeds

from the sale of the house at Asokoro. He stated that he later

made the final payment for the house in issue through a mortgage

arrangement with the 2nd Defendant and that he had domiciled his

salary account with the 2nd Defendant as security for monthly

repayment of the mortgage. He maintained that he used his wife’s

name to purchase the house because he cannot use his name to

purchase a second Federal Government House. He therefore

counterclaims against the Plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant claiming

the following reliefs:

1. An order of Court for a declaration that the 1st Defendant is rightful owner of the property at Block 10, Flat 5, Tamale Street, Wuse Zone 3, Abuja having paid substantially for it.

2. An order of Court granting the possession of the said

property at Block 10, Flat 5, Tamale Street, Wuse Zone 3, Abuja, to the 1st Defendant.

3. An order of Court for a declaration that there exists

Mortgage/Loan arrangement for the payment of the property in question with the 2nd Defendant.

4. An order of Court directing the 2nd Defendant to deliver the

title documents to the 1st Defendant upon completion of the Mortgage Loan repayment.

The 2nd Defendant’s case is that the Plaintiff was granted a loan

facility upon her application and that a Loan Agreement and Deed of Legal Mortgage were executed between the Plaintiff and the

2nd Defendant, in addition to the Plaintiff depositing the original

title documents of the house with the 2nd Defendant as well as

domiciling her salary to the 2nd Defendant. The 2nd Defendant asserts that it paid the sum of N2.3million being final payment of

the purchase price of the house to the FCTA and that deduction

4

on the repayment obligations of the Plaintiff has been going on in

respect of the transaction.

Pleadings were duly filed and exchanged and the Plaintiff filed a

Reply to the Statement of Defence of the 2nd Defendant as well as

a Reply to the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim of the 1st Defendant. The said Replies were deemed as duly filed and served

on 3rd March 2011. Pleadings having been closed, the matter

thereafter proceeded to trial. The parties each called one witness

to testify with respect to the relative positions made out in their

respective pleadings.

The Plaintiff testified in person and did not call any other witness.

She adopted the depositions in her witness statement on oath

deposed to on 29th January 2010 as her testimony. The following

documents were tendered by the Plaintiff in the course of her

evidence in chief:

1. The letter of offer to winning bidder as EXHIBIEXHIBIEXHIBIEXHIBIT A.T A.T A.T A.

2. The receipts issued in payment for the house as EXHIBITS B, EXHIBITS B, EXHIBITS B, EXHIBITS B, B1B1B1B1 and B2B2B2B2.

The Plaintiff wants the Court to grant all the reliefs claimed.

Under cross-examination by the learned counsel for the 1st Defendant, the Plaintiff said that she was a businesswoman selling

drinks on wholesale basis as well as ice-block and that she was also

a hairdresser. She said that the 1st Defendant told her about the

sale of Federal Government Houses and so she was giving him

money to make payments as she was the winner of the house. She

said the purchase price for the house was N3, 975,000.00 and that

she gave the 1st Defendant all the monies to pay for the house and

that the first amount she gave him was N700, 000.00. She said she

had completed payment for the house but that she could not

remember how much she gave the 1st Defendant in all since she

gave him the money from time to time. She stated that the

5

evidence of payments and all the documents for the house were

with the 1st Defendant and that when she discovered that the 1st Defendant had taken a loan from the 2nd Defendant, she

confronted the 1st Defendant and asked him for the documents to

her house and since then, her problem with the 1st Defendant started. She denied that she brought this action because the 1st Defendant divorced her, insisting that she only wanted the

documents to her house.

It is her further testimony under cross-examination that the 1st Defendant had tried to use officials of the Customary Court, Jiwa, to force her out of the house. She stated that they were not

living in the house initially but that after she completed payment

for the house, she moved into the house on 5th May 2007 with the

1st Defendant and their children. She further maintained that she

did not know anything about the 2nd Defendant and gave her

income as being over N1million per annum.

Cross-examined by learned counsel for the 2nd Defendant, the

Plaintiff said that she paid the initial 10% of the purchase price for

the house without assistance from anybody and that the receipt

and all the documents were with the 1st Defendant. She said she

did not borrow any money to pay for the house and that she gave

the 1st Defendant the money in cash to pay for the house. She

stated that she has never worked for any company and denied

knowledge of a company called LOGIC VENTURES LTD and also

denied submitting any application for loan to the 2nd Defendant and that she was not the one that affixed her passport photograph

on the application for loan. She stated that she had no account

with the 2nd Defendant and knew nothing about any statement of

account in respect thereof.

She further testified that she did not report to the 2nd Defendant when she discovered about the loan because the 1st Defendant did

not deny taking the loan. She finally agreed that at the time the

loan was taken, she was living with the 1st Defendant as husband

and wife.

6

With her testimony as the sole witness, the Plaintiff closed her

case.

The 1st Defendant testified as the DW1. He adopted the

depositions in his witness statement on oath and in the

counterclaimant’s witness statement on oath both of which were

deposed on 27th January 2011. The following documents which were

referred to in the said witness statements on oath were admitted

in evidence as follows:

1. Allocation Letter of Flat 1, Ground Floor, Asokoro 1, to 1st Defendant as EXHIBIT CEXHIBIT CEXHIBIT CEXHIBIT C.

2. Expression of Interest to purchase a Federal Government House in Abuja completed by 1st Defendant as EXHIBIT C1EXHIBIT C1EXHIBIT C1EXHIBIT C1.

3. Letter of Offer of No. 27, Flat 1, Gnassinge Eyadema Street, Asokoro to the 1st Defendant as EXHIBIT C2EXHIBIT C2EXHIBIT C2EXHIBIT C2.

4. Contract of Sale of Property between 1st Defendant and

Engr. Olatunde O. Runsewe as EXHIBIT C3EXHIBIT C3EXHIBIT C3EXHIBIT C3.

5. CTC of Certificate of Registration and Application Form for

registration of LOGIC VENTURES as EXHIBITS DEXHIBITS DEXHIBITS DEXHIBITS D and D1.D1.D1.D1.

6. Letter from Accountant General of the Federation to 2nd Defendant on domiciliation of salary, allowance and terminal

benefits of 1st Defendant as EXHIBIT EEXHIBIT EEXHIBIT EEXHIBIT E.

7. Documents in respect of bank cheque and 2nd Defendant’s deposit slips as EXHIBITS E1 EXHIBITS E1 EXHIBITS E1 EXHIBITS E1 –––– E23E23E23E23.

8. First Bank Investment Certificate and First Bank statement of

account in respect of Logic Ventures as EXHIBITS FEXHIBITS FEXHIBITS FEXHIBITS F and F1.

7

9. 1st Defendant’s Report of threat to life addressed to the

Commissioner of Police, FCT CommandCommissioner of Police, FCT CommandCommissioner of Police, FCT CommandCommissioner of Police, FCT Command as EXHIBIT FFEXHIBIT FFEXHIBIT FFEXHIBIT FF.

Under cross-examination by learned counsel for the 2nd Defendant, the 1st Defendant stated that the loan he took from the 2nd Defendant had not been repaid and that he was still making

monthly repayment.

Under cross-examination by the Plaintiff’s counsel, the 1st Defendant said that he got married to the Plaintiff in December 1995 and that the Plaintiff’s qualification at the time was school certificate and that she did not acquire any other qualification.

The 1st Defendant said he qualified as a Chartered Accountant in

November/December Diet 1998 and that he was inducted in May 1999. He agreed that as a chartered accountant he was conversant

with corporate transactions and confirmed that Logic Ventures was not a limited liability company but a business name of which he

was the sole partner. He stated that the Plaintiff has not been

involved in any viable business as the various businesses he started

for her were mismanaged by the Plaintiff and members of her family

such that the Plaintiff became a full-time housewife. He said that

the Plaintiff may have done some adhoc jobs like going on errands

for his company but that she had never had any paid job. He stated

that he initiated the loan taken from the 2nd Defendant in

agreement with the Plaintiff and that he duly informed his office

for his salary to be domiciled to the 2nd Defendant. He said that

Logic Ventures was responsible for servicing the loan and that his

salary came in where Logic Ventures defaulted. He gave the

relationship between Plaintiff, Logic Ventures and 2nd Defendant as being one in which he bought a house in the Plaintiff’s name

because he was not eligible to buy a second house. He stated that

it was alright to buy the second house in the Plaintiff’s name

because the Plaintiff was his wife then, but that since the Plaintiff is no longer his wife, the property should not be her own. He gave

the names of the Managing Directors of Logic Ventures at various

times as Itodo Andrew and later Idoko Emmanuel and he gave their

duties as being purely administrative and attending to errands. He

8

confirmed that Exhibits E2 Exhibits E2 Exhibits E2 Exhibits E2 –––– E23E23E23E23 were deposit slips by which

payments were made into Plaintiff’s account with the 2nd Defendant. He stated that he always ensured that there were

enough funds to service the mortgage monthly.

Testifying further under cross-examination the DW1 said that the

account with the 2nd Defendant was opened in November 2006 and

that the mortgage arrangement was also concluded in November 2006 and that the 2nd Defendant paid the purchase price directly

to the Ad Hoc Committee. He stated that the necessary account

opening documents were obtained and signed by the Plaintiff and

the documents were taken to the 2nd Defendant. He agreed that

the 2nd Defendant would not have had any dealings with the

Plaintiff if the said account had not been opened. He further

stated that Logic Ventures was primarily liable on the loan and that

his own salary was a backup in case of default by Logic Ventures. He maintained that the Plaintiff was not exposed to any financial

obligations in respect of the loan.

With his testimony as the sole witness, the 1st Defendant closed his

case.

Okechukwu Akachukwu, a Legal Officer with the 2nd Defendant testified as the DW2. He adopted the depositions in his witness statement on oath deposed on 15th April 2011 as his testimony. The

following documents were tendered and admitted in evidence in

the course of his evidence in chief:

1. Letter of Offer to winning bidder addressed to Plaintiff as EXHIBIT GEXHIBIT GEXHIBIT GEXHIBIT G....

2. Original receipts for payment of purchase price for the house

as EXHIBITS G1, G2EXHIBITS G1, G2EXHIBITS G1, G2EXHIBITS G1, G2 and G3G3G3G3.

3. Letter of Offer of Mortgage Loan to Plaintiff as EXHIBIT HEXHIBIT HEXHIBIT HEXHIBIT H.

9

4. Letter of domiciliation of Plaintiff’s salary by Logic Ventures Ltd as EXHIBIT H1EXHIBIT H1EXHIBIT H1EXHIBIT H1.

5. Letter of domiciliation of 1st Defendant’s salary, allowances

and benefits from office of Accountant General of the Federation to 2nd Defendant as EXHIBIT H2EXHIBIT H2EXHIBIT H2EXHIBIT H2.

6. Application Form for Commercial Mortgage Loan in Plaintiff’s name as EXHIBITEXHIBITEXHIBITEXHIBIT JJJJ....

7. Statement of account in Plaintiff’s name as EXHIBIT KEXHIBIT KEXHIBIT KEXHIBIT K.

At the end of the evidence in chief of the DW2, the 1st Defendant’s counsel elected not to cross-examine him.

Cross-examined by the learned counsel for the Plaintiff, the DW2 said that the account where the money for purchase of the house

was transferred to was opened in early 2006. He said that it was

not correct that the person the 2nd Defendant dealt with on the

legal mortgage was a man and that it was also not correct that the

guarantor in the transaction between the Plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant was a limited liability company as there was no

guarantor in the transaction. He said that Logic Ventures was the

employer of their customer and that it wrote to the 2nd Defendant domiciling the Plaintiff’s salary to the 2nd Defendant. He stated

that the Plaintiff had come with the 1st Defendant to the Bank but

he could not recall if there was any letter from the Plaintiff to the

2nd Defendant stating that her husband, the 1st Defendant, will be

part of the transaction.

He further testified that he did not know the Managing Director of Logic Ventures and gave the Plaintiff’s qualification as

contained in Exhibit JExhibit JExhibit JExhibit J as HND. He testified as to the procedure

adopted by the 2nd Defendant before it grants a loan and said that

the usual procedure entails the loan amount being transferred

directly to Ad Hoc Committee in order to avoid diversion of funds.

He further stated that the Plaintiff had not been faithful with

10

repayment of the loan and that the 2nd Defendant had written her

in that regard. He finally stated that he did not know if the

Plaintiff was still working with Logic Ventures.

With the testimony of its sole witness in defence of the action, the

2nd Defendant closed its case.

The adduction of evidence having been concluded, the matter

proceeded to address and in consonance with the stipulations of

Order 36 of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (HCR) the parties filed and

exchanged written addresses.

The 2nd Defendant’s final written address was filed on 9th June 2011. In the said written address, four issues were formulated as

arising for determination as follows:

1. Whether the Plaintiff and/or the 1st Defendant actually took a loan from the 2nd Defendant for the property at No. 10, Tamale Street, Wuse Zone 6, Abuja.

2. If the first question above is answered in the affirmative,

whether the said loan has been fully amortized. 3. Whether the Plaintiff has been able to prove an allegation of

forgery by the 1st Defendant. 4. Whether the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff in this case are

consistent with the facts and evidence adduced at the trial.

The 1st Defendant’s final written address is dated and filed on 8th June 2011. Two issues were therein distilled as arising for

determination, namely:

1. Whether or not the Plaintiff has established her claim for injunctions and declaration/ownership of the property at Block 10, Flat 5, Tamale Street, Wuse Abuja.

11

2. Whether or not the 1st Defendant has established his

counterclaim to warrant the grant of the reliefs sought.

The 1st Defendant also filed a Reply to the Plaintiff’s final written address. The said Reply is dated 13th September 2011 but filed on

14th September 2011.

The Plaintiff’s final written address is dated 27th June 2011 but

filed on 26th July 2011. Two issues were also formulated by the

Plaintiff as arising for determination as follows:

1. Whether there is a contractual relationship between the Plaintiff and 2nd Defendant.

2. To determine between the 1st Defendant and the Plaintiff,

the rightful owner of Block 10, Flat 5, Tamale Street, Wuse, Abuja.

Addressing the Court on 8th December 2011, Ezenwa Okoli, Esq., learned counsel for the 2nd Defendant adopted the submissions in

the written final address of the 2nd Defendant and he urged the

Court to dismiss the claim against the 2nd Defendant. Equally, Sam Ameh, Esq., of counsel for the 1st Defendant adopted the

submissions in the 1st Defendant’s written addresses and he urged

the Court to dismiss the Plaintiff’s case and enter judgment for

the 1st Defendant on its counterclaim. In the same vein, N. J. Kalu, Esq., learned counsel for the Plaintiff adopted the submissions in

the Plaintiff’s written final address and he urged the Court to

grant the Plaintiff’s claim and dismiss the 1st Defendant’s counterclaim.

After the parties had addressed the Court, the Court, while

considering its judgment, deemed it expedient to invite learned

counsel for the parties to further address the court on the

applicability of two principles of law which the parties did not

consider in their respective final written addresses. The principles

12

of law being: the doctrine of implied or resulting trust and the

presumption of advancement. It became necessary to call for this

further address because from the case presented by the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant, if the Court found that the Plaintiff did

not raise the purchase money for the property herself, but that it

was raised by the Defendants; then there was a question of

whether the property which is in the Plaintiff’s name, was given to

her as an advancement since at all times material to the

transaction, the Plaintiff was married to the 1st Defendant. On the

flip side, there is the evidence that the 1st Defendant could not

buy another Federal Government house in his name under the

monetization policy, so he used the name of the Plaintiff who at

the time was his wife to buy the property; circumstances that raise

the question of whether there was an implied or resulting trust in

the ownership of the property created in favour of the 1st Defendant.

The parties filed further written addresses on the applicability of

the said principles. The 1st Defendant’s written address in this

regard is dated and filed on 28th February 2012. The 2nd Defendant’s further final address is dated and filed on 5th March 2012 whilst

the Plaintiff’s additional final written address is dated 20th February 2012 but filed on 28th February 2012.

In further addressing the Court on 6th March 2012, the learned

counsel for the parties adopted their respective written address. The 2nd Defendant submitted that it could be inferred from the

nature of the relationship between the Plaintiff and the 1st

Defendant which was one of wife and husband; that their

intention was to acquire the property for their habitation and that

of their children. It was therefore posited that neither party can

take the property and appropriate the same since their intention

was to buy the property for the use of their family.

The learned counsel for the 1st Defendant in his written address submitted inter alia, that the Plaintiff’s case was that she bidded

for and bought the property in question and denied that a loan was

13

obtained to complete the payment for the said property. It was

thus argued that the Plaintiff, as a result of the assertion that she

was the one who provided money to pay for the property, had

removed the condition for the applicability of the presumption of advancement. Learned counsel for the 1st Defendant then posited

that: “The plain truth demonstrated before the Court is that through a loan, the 1st Defendant bought the property in question for his family in the name of the Plaintiff.”

It was further submitted that it was apparent from the evidence

that the intention of the 1st Defendant was to purchase another

house for his family and that this intention is a clear rebuttal of

the doctrine of resulting trust and presumption of advancement in

favour of the Plaintiff. It was then concluded that“... The 1st Defendant proved he bought the house in the Plaintiff’s name as family property where he and the Plaintiff resided before he was forced to move out.”

The position of the Plaintiff is that where the Court finds that the

Plaintiff did not provide the purchase money for the property,

then the Court should hold that it was the 1st Defendant’s intention to make an outright gift to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s children and indeed himself. It was posited that the doctrine of resulting trust cannot apply in favour of the 1st Defendant because

his evidence is that by purchasing a second Federal Government House under the monetization policy when he was not entitled to,

he sought to fraudulently circumvent the monetization policy and

that since his hands were not clean, he cannot seek equity.

Counsel urged the Court to find, that the presumption of advancement inures in favour of the Plaintiff because the 1st Defendant failed to adduce evidence to rebut the presumption of advancement in favour of the Plaintiff.

I have carefully considered the pleadings filed in this matter, the

testimonial and documentary evidence as well as the written

addresses of learned counsel. The Plaintiff has a claim and the 1st Defendant has a counterclaim. A counterclaim is an independent,

14

separate and distinct cause of action and the counterclaimant like

any other plaintiff in an action must prove his case against the

person counterclaimed before obtaining judgment on the

counterclaim. See JERIC NIG. LTD vs. UNION BANK OF NIG. JERIC NIG. LTD vs. UNION BANK OF NIG. JERIC NIG. LTD vs. UNION BANK OF NIG. JERIC NIG. LTD vs. UNION BANK OF NIG.

PLC (2001) 7 WRN 1 at 18 PLC (2001) 7 WRN 1 at 18 PLC (2001) 7 WRN 1 at 18 PLC (2001) 7 WRN 1 at 18 and WALTER vs. SKYLL NIG. LTD WALTER vs. SKYLL NIG. LTD WALTER vs. SKYLL NIG. LTD WALTER vs. SKYLL NIG. LTD

(2000) 6 WRN 130 at 134.(2000) 6 WRN 130 at 134.(2000) 6 WRN 130 at 134.(2000) 6 WRN 130 at 134. Given this accepted legal position, the

Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant have the evidential burden of

proving their respective claim and counterclaim on the balance of

probability and preponderance of evidence as stipulated in

Sections 131 – 134 of the Evidence Act, 2011.

I have mulled over the issues for determination distilled by the

parties and the common denominator in the said issues is the

payment for and ownership of the property situate at Block 10, Flat 5, Tamale Street, Zone 3, Wuse, Abuja. Indeed, this is the central

theme in this action. In the light of this and in view of the fact

that both the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant have the evidential

burden of establishing their respective claim and counterclaim, I

will take the liberty to tinker with the issues for determination and

hone the same to precision in order to succinctly grasp the issue

that requires resolution in this matter. I make haste to state that

the issue for determination which I will shortly distil is not as an

alternative to the issues formulated by the parties but it will in fact

be cumulative with the said issues: SANUSI vs. AMOYEGUSANUSI vs. AMOYEGUSANUSI vs. AMOYEGUSANUSI vs. AMOYEGUNNNN (1992) (1992) (1992) (1992)

4 NWLR (PT 237) 527 at 550 4 NWLR (PT 237) 527 at 550 4 NWLR (PT 237) 527 at 550 4 NWLR (PT 237) 527 at 550 –––– 551 551 551 551 and NEKA B. B. BNEKA B. B. BNEKA B. B. BNEKA B. B. B....

MANUFACTURING LTD vs. ACB LTD (2004) 17 NSCQR 2004 240 MANUFACTURING LTD vs. ACB LTD (2004) 17 NSCQR 2004 240 MANUFACTURING LTD vs. ACB LTD (2004) 17 NSCQR 2004 240 MANUFACTURING LTD vs. ACB LTD (2004) 17 NSCQR 2004 240

at 250 at 250 at 250 at 250 –––– 251.251.251.251. After due rumination, it is my considered view that

the apt issue for determination which would encapsulate the issues

formulated by the parties is:

WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF HAS ESTABLISHED HER CLAIM WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF HAS ESTABLISHED HER CLAIM WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF HAS ESTABLISHED HER CLAIM WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF HAS ESTABLISHED HER CLAIM BY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE AND WHETHER THE 1BY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE AND WHETHER THE 1BY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE AND WHETHER THE 1BY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE AND WHETHER THE 1STSTSTST DEFENDANT ESTABLISHED HIS COUNTERCLAIM BY DEFENDANT ESTABLISHED HIS COUNTERCLAIM BY DEFENDANT ESTABLISHED HIS COUNTERCLAIM BY DEFENDANT ESTABLISHED HIS COUNTERCLAIM BY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE, THUS CREDIBLE EVIDENCE, THUS CREDIBLE EVIDENCE, THUS CREDIBLE EVIDENCE, THUS ENTITLING THEM TO ENTITLING THEM TO ENTITLING THEM TO ENTITLING THEM TO JUDGMENT?JUDGMENT?JUDGMENT?JUDGMENT?

15

It is on the basis of the above issue which is sufficiently distensible

that I will now examine the evidence adduced in respect of the

reliefs claimed in this matter to see if the evidential burden of

proof was discharged.

This action presents a classic case of tales from a marriage gone

awry. The evidence adduced in this matter shows that the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant were married. The marriage has come to an

end. During the subsistence of the marriage, the Federal Government monetization policy was introduced. The 1st Defendant bought a house in Asokoro under the monetization policy. He later sold the house. Not being eligible to buy a second

house under the monetization policy in his name, a second house

was bidded for and bought in the name of the Plaintiff. It is from

this point that the divergence in the evidence of the parties

commences.

While the Plaintiff’s case is that she bidded for and through the 1st Defendant, paid the purchase price for the property from her

resources. The 1st Defendant’s case is that he financed the

payments for the purchase of the property, which included having

to take a mortgage facility from the 2nd Defendant to complete the

payment for the house. With the discordance that set into their

marriage which resulted in the dissolution of the marriage, it is

understandable that a tussle has ensued over who owns the

property. Before I proceed any further, let me state that from the

evidence, at all times material to the mortgage facility taken from

the 2nd Defendant, the marital union between the Plaintiff and the

1st Defendant had not been dissolved.

I have already identified that the central theme in this action is the

ownership of Block 10, Flat 5, Tamale Street, Zone 3, Wuse, Abuja. In paragraph 13 (e) of the Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff seeks a

declaration that the property belongs to her since she bidded and

paid for the house. In paragraph 31 (1) of the 1st Defendant’s Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, the 1st Defendant seeks

a declaration that he is the rightful owner of the said property

16

having paid substantially for it. Now, how has the evidence panned

out?

It is important to state at this outset that in paragraph 7 of the

Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff averred that she applied and

bidded for the property, she won the bid and the letter of offer was issued to her. The Plaintiff gave evidence in this regard and

tendered the letter of offer and the receipts for 10% non-

refundable deposit and the further instalment payment for the

property which were admitted as EEEExhibitsxhibitsxhibitsxhibits A, BA, BA, BA, B and B1.B1.B1.B1.

It is instructive that the Statement of Claim is silent on how the

Plaintiff paid the purchase price for the property. However, in her

testimony in Court, the Plaintiff testified that she was giving the

1st Defendant money periodically to make payment and that all the

documents in respect of the payment were with the 1st Defendant.

The law is now firmly established beyond peradventure that

evidence which has not been pleaded goes to no issue. Apart from

pleading that she bidded for the property and was issued a letter of offer, there are no averments in the Statement of Claim as to

how the Plaintiff paid the purchase price for the property. The

legal effect of this is that the testimony of the Plaintiff that it was

from her resources that she gave the 1st Defendant money to pay

the purchase price for the property goes to no issue and is of no

legal effect. See CIVIL DESIGN CONSTRUCTION NIG. LTD vs. CIVIL DESIGN CONSTRUCTION NIG. LTD vs. CIVIL DESIGN CONSTRUCTION NIG. LTD vs. CIVIL DESIGN CONSTRUCTION NIG. LTD vs.

SCOA NIG. LTD (2007) 30 WRN 81 at 118 SCOA NIG. LTD (2007) 30 WRN 81 at 118 SCOA NIG. LTD (2007) 30 WRN 81 at 118 SCOA NIG. LTD (2007) 30 WRN 81 at 118 –––– 119,119,119,119, NSIEGBNSIEGBNSIEGBNSIEGBE vs. E vs. E vs. E vs.

MMMMGBEMENA (2007) ALL FWLR (PT 372) 1769 at 1795 GBEMENA (2007) ALL FWLR (PT 372) 1769 at 1795 GBEMENA (2007) ALL FWLR (PT 372) 1769 at 1795 GBEMENA (2007) ALL FWLR (PT 372) 1769 at 1795 and

EMEGOKWUE vs. OKADIGBO (1973) 4 SC 113EMEGOKWUE vs. OKADIGBO (1973) 4 SC 113EMEGOKWUE vs. OKADIGBO (1973) 4 SC 113EMEGOKWUE vs. OKADIGBO (1973) 4 SC 113. Therefore, where I

disregard the testimony of the Plaintiff that she gave the 1st Defendant money to pay the purchase price for the property as I

am bound to do since those facts were not pleaded, the

consequence is that the Plaintiff has not adduced sufficient

credible evidence to establish that she paid for the property.

The learned counsel for the Plaintiff relying on the cases of

MADU vs. MADU (2008) 6 NWLRMADU vs. MADU (2008) 6 NWLRMADU vs. MADU (2008) 6 NWLRMADU vs. MADU (2008) 6 NWLR (PT 1083) 296 (PT 1083) 296 (PT 1083) 296 (PT 1083) 296 and EZEANAH EZEANAH EZEANAH EZEANAH

17

vs. ATTA (2004) 7 NWLR (PT 873) 468 vs. ATTA (2004) 7 NWLR (PT 873) 468 vs. ATTA (2004) 7 NWLR (PT 873) 468 vs. ATTA (2004) 7 NWLR (PT 873) 468 submits that since the letter of offer was in the name of the Plaintiff, it was conclusive proof

that the property belongs to the Plaintiff. I am not enthused by

this submission. The documents of title involved in the MADU MADU MADU MADU and

EZEANAH EZEANAH EZEANAH EZEANAH cases were certificates of occupancy. The law is that

the holder of a certificate of occupancy holds the land to the

exclusion of any other person unless and until set aside or if it is

proved that there is a person with a better title to the land before

the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. See MADU vs. MADU vs. MADU vs. MADU vs.

MADU (supra) at 319HMADU (supra) at 319HMADU (supra) at 319HMADU (supra) at 319H and EZEANAH vs. ATTA (supra) at 501EZEANAH vs. ATTA (supra) at 501EZEANAH vs. ATTA (supra) at 501EZEANAH vs. ATTA (supra) at 501AAAA----

CCCC. . . . The same is not true of the letter of offer which is an inchoate

document that only crystallizes when the terms and conditions for

payment contained therein have been satisfied. I therefore agree

with the 1st Defendant’s counsel that the letter of offer cannot be

equated to a certificate of occupancy such that the mere

production of the same amounts to proof of ownership. There still

remained the inexorable need for the Plaintiff to establish that it

was from her resources that she met the payment conditions in the

letter of offer. I have already found that the Plaintiff did not

plead how she made payment for the property and so her testimony

that she gave the 1st Defendant money to pay goes to no issue.

The matter does not end here. The uncontroverted and

unchallenged evidence before the Court is that the property was

bidded for in the name of the Plaintiff. The letter of offer, Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit AAAA,,,, is in her name. The 1st Defendant testified that he bidded for

the property in the Plaintiff’s name and tendered the Exhibits C Exhibits C Exhibits C Exhibits C seriesseriesseriesseries to show why he could not bid for the property in his own

name, having previously bought a Federal Government house under

the monetization policy. He also tendered Exhibits D, D1, F Exhibits D, D1, F Exhibits D, D1, F Exhibits D, D1, F and F1 F1 F1 F1 to show how he raised funds and made the initial payments towards

the purchase of the property. The 1st Defendant further tendered

Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit B2B2B2B2 to show the payment of the balance of the purchase

price for the property through a mortgage loan from the 2nd Defendant. The 2nd Defendant in turn tendered Exhibits G, G1, H, Exhibits G, G1, H, Exhibits G, G1, H, Exhibits G, G1, H, H1, H2, JH1, H2, JH1, H2, JH1, H2, J and KKKK to show that the final payment for the property

was effected through mortgage funds provided by it. The 1st

18

Defendant also tendered the ExhibitExhibitExhibitExhibit E seriesE seriesE seriesE series to show how he has

been making repayment in respect of the loan taken from the 2nd Defendant. Since I have found that the Plaintiff did not adduce

cogent and compelling evidence with respect to how she made

payment for the property as there was no averment in her

Statement of Claim in that regard; it seems to me that the

evidence of the Defendants with respect to how the property was

paid for is credible.

Though the Plaintiff denied taking any mortgage from the 2nd Defendant, the documentary evidence before the Court clearly

shows that a loan was granted by the 2nd Defendant and that it was

with this loan that the balance of the purchase price for the

property was paid. The property is in the Plaintiff’s name and since

she has not been able to prove that it was from her resources that

she paid the purchase price for the property, I find and hold that

the balance of the purchase price of the property was paid from

the loan granted by the 2nd Defendant.

The Plaintiff has further argued there is no contractual

relationship between her and the 2nd Defendant as she did not

personally apply for any loan for which she is liable to the 2nd Defendant. Let me restate that at the material time when the loan

was taken from the 2nd Defendant, the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant were still married. Even though the Plaintiff denies

outright, the knowledge of any loan having been taken, I had the

advantage of seeing the witnesses testify in this matter; I closely

observed their demeanour and body language, and I do not believe

the Plaintiff’s assertion that she did not know that her husband,

the 1st Defendant, took the loan from the 2nd Defendant to pay the

balance of the purchase price for the property. The Plaintiff was

definitely aware that the purchase price was paid through the loan

obtained from the 2nd Defendant, which is why there are no

averments in her pleadings as to how she paid the purchase price. I

however agree with the Plaintiff that she is not be personally liable

for the repayment of the loan since the evidence before the Court

is that the 1st Defendant was to be liable for the repayment of the

19

mortgage through his company, Logic Ventures. The 1st Defendant in his evidence admitted that he is liable to repay the loan and that

the Plaintiff is not exposed to any financial responsibility in respect

thereof.

Thus far, I have found that the Plaintiff has failed to establish

that she paid the purchase price for the property from her

resources. I have also found that the evidence discloses that it was

the 1st Defendant who paid the purchase price of the property,

partly through a loan obtained in the Plaintiff’s name, which loan is

yet to be fully amortized by the 1st Defendant who has the

responsibility to amortize the same. The property is in the

Plaintiff’s name. The purchase funds were provided by the 1st Defendant. The Plaintiff by virtue of the fact that the property is

in her name wants a declaration that she is the owner of the

property. The 1st Defendant by virtue of having provided and

arranged for the funds wants a declaration that he is the rightful

owner of the property. The only basis on which the 1st Defendant will be entitled to the declaration sought, in these circumstances,

is if the doctrine of implied or resulting trust inures in his favour.

Now the doctrine of implied or resulting trust is a trust founded

upon the unexpressed but presumed intention of the parties. This

is apparent where someone provides funds for purchase of land

and the conveyance of the land is made in the name of another

person; there is then a resulting trust which arises by operation of

law in favour of the person who provided the money. See MADU MADU MADU MADU

vs. MADU (vs. MADU (vs. MADU (vs. MADU (suprasuprasuprasupra) 3) 3) 3) 320F20F20F20F----321C321C321C321C and EZEANAEZEANAEZEANAEZEANAHHHH vs. ATTA (vs. ATTA (vs. ATTA (vs. ATTA (suprasuprasuprasupra) at ) at ) at ) at

502.502.502.502. Based on the findings I have made that though the property is

in the name of the Plaintiff, the funds for the purchase of the

property was provided by the 1st Defendant; the doctrine of implied or resulting trust will prima facie seem to inure in favour of

the 1st Defendant. However, since the doctrine of implied or resulting trust is based upon the unexpressed but presumed

intention of the true purchaser, it will not arise where the

relationship existing between the true and nominal purchaser is

such as to raise a presumption that a gift was intended. In other

20

words, where the relationship between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant, that of wife and husband, is such that the 1st Defendant will be presumed to have made a gift of the property to

the Plaintiff. This is known in law as the presumption of advancement and it applies in all cases in which the person

providing the purchase money is under an equitable obligation to

support or make provision for the person to whom the property is

conveyed, like a husband/wife relationship or father/child

relationship or where the person stands in loco parentis to another.

However, both the presumption of a resulting trust and the

presumption of advancement can be rebutted by evidence of the

actual intention of the person who provided the purchase money.

It is only where there is no evidence of the actual intention of the

person who provided the purchase money that the presumption of

resulting trust or advancement, as the case may be, shall prevail.

See UGHUTEVBE vs. SHONOWO (2004) 18 NSCQR UGHUTEVBE vs. SHONOWO (2004) 18 NSCQR UGHUTEVBE vs. SHONOWO (2004) 18 NSCQR UGHUTEVBE vs. SHONOWO (2004) 18 NSCQR (PT(PT(PT(PT II) II) II) II) 741 at 741 at 741 at 741 at

770770770770 –––– 771771771771 and FOWKES vs. PASCOE (1875) 10 Ch. App. 343FOWKES vs. PASCOE (1875) 10 Ch. App. 343FOWKES vs. PASCOE (1875) 10 Ch. App. 343FOWKES vs. PASCOE (1875) 10 Ch. App. 343....

Now the evidence before the Court is that since the 1st Defendant was not eligible to purchase a second Federal Government House,

his intention was to acquire another house for the use of himself

and his family. This can be inferred from the testimony of the 1st Defendant when he stated that it was alright to buy the second

house in the Plaintiff’s name because the Plaintiff was his wife

then, but that since the Plaintiff is no longer his wife, the property

should not be her own. It is thus clear that the objective of the

purchase of the house is for the use of the 1st Defendant’s family,

with the Plaintiff as his wife, and not necessarily for the purpose

of advancing the Plaintiff. Since there is clear evidence from

which the intention behind the purchase of the property can be

inferred, the doctrine of implied or resulting trust will not inure in

favour of the 1st Defendant so as to entitle him to the declaration

that he is the rightful owner of the property. In the same vein, the

presumption of advancement will not inure in favour of the

Plaintiff because even though the property was bought in her

name, there is the rebutting evidence of the actual intention of

the 1st Defendant who provided the purchase money that the

21

intention was not to advance her by making the property as a gift,

but in fulfilment of the obligation of the 1st Defendant as husband

and father to provide shelter for his wife and children.

In view of the fact that the evidence adduced by the Plaintiff and

the 1st Defendant is not such that establishes entitlement to a

declaration that the property belongs to anyone of them, I am

unable to make the declarations sought in their favour. As rightly

submitted by the learned counsel for the 2nd Defendant, “neither party can take the property and appropriate same to him or herself as their intention was to buy the property for the use of their family.” I therefore decline to make the declaration sought that

Block 10, Flat 5, Tamale Street, Zone 3, Wuse, Abuja belongs to the

Plaintiff, or that the 1st Defendant is the rightful owner of the

said property.

Before I leave this aspect of this judgment, let me state that I gave

due consideration to the stipulations of Order 23 Rule 5 (1) HCR which requires that where a party pleading relies on a breach of

trust, the particulars should be stated in the pleadings. The

current legal position is that material facts are to be pleaded and

not the legal result or legal consequence: RE VANDERVELL’SRE VANDERVELL’SRE VANDERVELL’SRE VANDERVELL’S

TRUSTS (NO. 2) (1974) 1 Ch. D. 269 TRUSTS (NO. 2) (1974) 1 Ch. D. 269 TRUSTS (NO. 2) (1974) 1 Ch. D. 269 TRUSTS (NO. 2) (1974) 1 Ch. D. 269 and EZEANAH vs. ATTA EZEANAH vs. ATTA EZEANAH vs. ATTA EZEANAH vs. ATTA

(supra) at 501F(supra) at 501F(supra) at 501F(supra) at 501F----502D. 502D. 502D. 502D. I found the averments in paragraphs 10, 11 and

25 of the 1st Defendant’s Statement of Defence and Counterclaim to be averments of material facts in relation to the doctrine of resulting trust.

The Plaintiff claims a further declaration that she did not take any

loan or enter into any contractual agreement with the 2nd Defendant or anybody whatsoever. I have already found that the

balance of the purchase price was paid through a loan obtained

from the 2nd Defendant; and that I do not believe the Plaintiff’s claim that she was not aware that any loan was taken. The evidence

however, is that the 1st Defendant and his company, Logic Ventures, were to be wholly responsible for the repayment of the

mortgage obligation and that the Plaintiff will not be responsible

22

financially in any way. Pellucid on the evidence is that a loan was in

fact taken in the Plaintiff’s name for the payment of the balance

of the purchase price. However, the liability for the repayment of

the loan was wholly that of the 1st Defendant and his company,

Logic Ventures. To that extent therefore, even though I have held

that I am satisfied that the Plaintiff was aware that a mortgage

facility was taken from the 2nd Defendant, on the evidence the

Plaintiff is entitled to the declaration that she does not have any

contractual agreement with the 2nd Defendant on the repayment

of the loan which I repeat is entirely the responsibility of the 1st Defendant and his company, Logic Ventures. In this regard

therefore, the 1st Defendant is equally entitled to the declaration

he seeks in the Counterclaim that there exists a mortgage/loan

agreement with the 2nd Defendant for the payment for the

property.

The 1st Defendant seeks a further declaration for an order of

Court granting possession of the property to him. I have found in

this judgment that the 1st Defendant is not entitled to the

declaration sought that he is the rightful owner of the property.

Since he has not been found to be the rightful owner, he is not

entitled to the order for possession of the property. It is settled

law that possession is nine-tenths of the law and that a person in

possession has a good title to the land against the whole world

except the person with a better right or title to the land. See

SKYE BANK vs. AKINPELU (2010) LPELR 1 at 42.SKYE BANK vs. AKINPELU (2010) LPELR 1 at 42.SKYE BANK vs. AKINPELU (2010) LPELR 1 at 42.SKYE BANK vs. AKINPELU (2010) LPELR 1 at 42.The Plaintiff and the five children she has for the 1st Defendant are in

possession and reside in the property at Tamale Street, Zone 3, Wuse, Abuja. Since the 1st Defendant has not been declared the

owner, he does not have the right to the possession of the

property.

The Plaintiff claims for an order directing the 1st and 2nd Defendants to return the original copies of the title documents

relating to Block 10, Flat 5, Tamale Street, Zone 3, Wuse, Abuja, especially the letter of offer, to her or her agents. The original of

the letter of offer was tendered by the 2nd Defendant as Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit

23

GGGG. The evidence before the Court is that the mortgage facility by

which the balance of the purchase price of the property was paid,

has not been amortized by the 1st Defendant, whose responsibility

it is to repay the mortgage loan. I found in this judgment that the

Plaintiff did not prove that she paid the purchase price for the

property from her resources. This being so, since there is still an

outstanding obligation on the mortgage, the Plaintiff is not entitled

to an order for the original copies of the title documents in

respect of the property to be returned to her.

The 1st Defendant equally claims for an order of Court directing

the 2nd Defendant to deliver the title document of the property to

him upon completion of the mortgage loan payment. Though I have

found in the course of this judgment that the obligation to repay

the mortgage loan is that of the 1st Defendant, I equally found that

the 1st Defendant is not entitled to a declaration that he is the

rightful owner of the property. In the same vein, I found that the

Plaintiff is not entitled to a declaration that the property belongs

to her, and that the intention of the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant at the time the property was acquired during the

subsistence of their marriage, was that it should be a shelter for

the family. This goal of provision of shelter for the family ought not

to be thwarted by the fact that discordance set into the marriage

and it was dissolved. There is still the family, primarily the five children of the union between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant. The right of these children to shelter remains paramount and

should not be impeded. Therefore, since the 1st Defendant has not

been held to be the owner of the property, he is not entitled to an

order for the title documents to be delivered to him upon

completion of the mortgage loan payment.

The Plaintiff claims for an order of injunction restraining the 1st Defendant from ejecting her or her children from Block 10, Flat 5, Tamale Street, Zone 3, Wuse, Abuja. I have held that neither the

Plaintiff nor the 1st Defendant is entitled to the declaration

sought by them of ownership of the property. I further held that

the property was acquired for the benefit of the 1st Defendant’s

24

wife and children by virtue of the obligation of the 1st Defendant as husband and father to provide shelter for the children. This

being so, the children of the union between the Plaintiff and the

1st Defendant are entitled to the protection of this Court as the

evidence before the Court is that the Plaintiff and her children

are in possession and reside at the property. The Plaintiff is

accordingly entitled to the order of injunction sought restraining

the 1st Defendant from ejecting her and their children from Block

10, Flat 5, Tamale Street, Zone 3, Wuse, Abuja since the evidence

before the Court establishes their unalloyed right to the possession

and occupation of the property.

The Plaintiff claims further orders of injunction restraining the

Defendants from selling the property and from asserting any right

of ownership over the property. The findings in the course of this

judgment that there is an undischarged mortgage on the property,

which the 1st Defendant has the responsibility of paying, shows

that there is an encumbrance on the property. The 2nd Defendant which provided the funds for the payment of the balance of the

purchase price for the property has an interest in the property as a

mortgagee for purposes of realizing the outstanding balance on the

mortgage. With respect to the 1st Defendant, having found that he

is not entitled to the declaration that he is the rightful owner of

the property, the injunction sought by the Plaintiff would lie

against him to restrain him from selling the property or asserting

any right of ownership over the same.

From the totality of the foregoing, I will in the main resolve the sole

issue for determination distilled by the Court against the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant. None of them has established a case of

entitlement to a declaration of ownership Block 10, Flat 5, Tamale Street, Zone 3, Wuse, Abuja, which is the crux of this litigation.

The declaration sought by them in that regard accordingly fails and

it is dismissed. For the avoidance of doubt, the judgment order in

this matter is as follows:

25

1. It is hereby declared that there exists a mortgage/loan agreement for the payment of Block 10, Flat 5, Tamale Street, Zone 3, Wuse, Abuja with the 2nd Defendant which mortgage/loan agreement is to be solely repaid by the 1st Defendant.

2. The 1st Defendant whether by himself, his agents, assigns or any person whosoever claiming through him are hereby restrained from selling or assigning, ejecting the Plaintiff or her children or asserting any right of ownership over Block 10, Flat 5, Tamale Street, Zone 3, Wuse, Abuja.

3. It is hereby declared that the Plaintiff does not owe any contractual obligation with respect to the repayment of the mortgage loan granted by the 2nd Defendant.

4. The respective claims for the delivery of the title documents in respect of Block 10, Flat 5, Tamale Street, Zone 3, Wuse, Abuja to the Plaintiff and 1st Defendant fail and are refused.

5. The 1st Defendant’s claim for an order of possession of the property fails and is refused.

6. The respective claims of declaration that Block 10, Flat 5, Tamale Street, Zone 3, Wuse, Abuja belongs to Plaintiff or 1st Defendant, fail and are refused.

UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWUUGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWUUGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWUUGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU

PRESIDING JUDGEPRESIDING JUDGEPRESIDING JUDGEPRESIDING JUDGE

Appearances:Appearances:Appearances:Appearances:

N. J. Kalu, Esq. (with U. M. Ekerete, Esq., F. N. Nwakor, Esq. and Miss E. M. Onovo) for the Plaintiff.

Sam Ameh, Esq. (with I. G. Abah, Esq.) for the 1st Defendant. Ezenwa Okoli, Esq. for the 2nd Defendant.