Suit No Fctcv5102018 – Mrs. Adumo Granville Abibo V. Mrs. Linda Ladi Mchivga & 2 Ors
Judgement delivered on the 13th day of June 2024.
Background
By a writ of summons, we, on behalf of the Claimant instituted this action against the Defendants on record at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.
The fulcrum of the Claimant’s case was that sometime in the year 2014, she purchased a property from the 1st Defendant, a holder of a Certificate of Occupancy. At all material times before, during, and immediately after the said transaction, she directly engaged the 1st Defendant via telephone, who repeatedly confirmed that she had assigned the 2nd Defendant (her younger sister) to carry out the sale on her behalf due to her absence from the country.
The 1st Defendant also went as far as issuing a purported Letter of Authority (Exhibit 002) to the 2nd Defendant to act on her behalf on all issues relating to the sale.
The 2nd Defendant, acting for and on behalf of the 1st Defendant, executed two (2) documents titled “Deed of Assignment” and “Irrevocable Power of Attorney” in favor of the Claimant to the full knowledge and confirmation of the 1st Defendant.
The 1st and 2nd Defendants also handed over the original title documents to the Claimant and gave the Claimant full possession of the said property. However, the Claimant, who has been in undisturbed possession of the property till date, sought to perfect the title of the property by having her interest registered with the 3rd Defendant (the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory) through the Abuja Geographic Information Systems (AGIS) – an agency charged with the responsibility of registering title – but was unable to do so because of the irregular signature of the 1st Defendant.
The Claimant led evidence to the effect that she, as well as her Counsel had made frantic efforts to get the 1st and 2nd Defendants to regularize the documents to enable her perfect her title, but the 1st and 2nd Defendants had doggedly, willfully, and deliberately refused to do so.
Owing to the nonchalant attitude of the 1st and 2nd Defendants, and in exasperation for all the losses and inconveniences arising therefrom, the Claimant filed this action seeking the intervention of the Honourable Court because the Court, the world over, is strongly regarded as the last hope of the common man.
On their part, the 1st and 2nd Defendants admitted selling and handing over the original title documents of the property to the Claimant but denied that the Claimant reached them for the necessary assistance. Notably, however, the 1st Defendant sought to rescind the sale via her counter claim on the ground that the transaction was inchoate due to her irregular signature; a prayer the court rejected as ‘ungodly.’
On his part, the 3rd Defendant, in their pleadings, denied the allegation of prejudicial action towards the Claimant. The 3rd Defendant, however, neither called any witness nor tendered any document but relied on the facts and evidence already before the court.
Following the elevation of the initial trial Judge to the Court of Appeal, the matter was re-assigned and started de novo, with hearing fully commencing on 08/05/23.
At the end of the trial, parties filed, argued, and adopted their respective final written addresses.
Judgement
Final Judgement was delivered on the 13th day of June 2024 in favour of the Claimant. In his Judgement, the learned trial judge noted the 1st Defendant’s unequivocal admission of the sale (at pages 15 – 16 of the Judgement), and expressly declared the actions of the 1st Defendant and her agent (the 2nd Defendant) as wrongful, prejudicial, “ungodly,” and constituting a serious breach of the contract of sale between the Claimant and the 1st Defendant.
More specifically, the learned trial judge further directed the 1st Defendant to immediately execute, with her correct signature, a new Deed of Assignment, and Irrevocable Power of Attorney in favour of the Claimant.
Granville Abibo & Co
Copyrights Reserved.
