The appellant and the respondent know each other very well. In fact they could be described as friends. The appellant’s wife and the respondent used to teach in the same schools. When the appellant was transferred from Kaduna to Katsina, he decided to sell his house situated at No. 10 Kudendan Street, Nasarawa, Kaduna. The house has twenty-seven rooms which were all occupied by tenants. The appellant approached the respondent to buy the house. The respondent agreed to buy the house but told the appellant that, at that time, he had no money with which to pay the appellant. The respondent then asked the appellant to assist him (the respondent) to obtain a bank loan with which to pay for the house. The appellant agreed to do so. On 12/3/90, the appellant agreed to sell to the respondent the house for N35,000.00. the agreement was reduced into writing. It was signed by the parties and their witnesses. The appellant the gave the respondent a photocopy of the Local Government Certificate of Occupancy in respect of the said house to enable the respondent process the loan from the bank in order to pay the appellant. Instead of using the photocopy of the said Certificate to obtain a bank loan the respondent used it to convert the Local Government Certificate of Occupancy into a Statutory Certificate of Occupancy issued by the State Government in respondent’s name.
The appellant, on several occasions demanded the purchase price of the house. The respondent was unable to pay. The appellant then instituted an action before the Kaduna State High Court claiming the following relief’s: -
-
1
A declaration that the plaintiff is still the owner of the property situated and being at No. AL 10 Kudenda Road Alias No. 36 Kigo Road Nasarawa Village, Kaduna covered by Certificate of Occupancy No. CHLG/B/000/194.
-
2
A declaration that the Certificate of Occupancy purportedly procured by the defendant in respect of the said property is null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
-
3
An Order restraining the defendant from parading himself as the landlord of the said premises.
-
4
An Order directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff arrears of rent of the two (2) rooms occupied by the defendant from March to 16/1/92 and thereafter until the final determination of this suit”.
-
5
An account of all monies collected by the defendant in the said premises while parading himself as the landlord from the said four tenants at N25.00 per room from march 16/1/92 and thereafter until the final determination
Pleadings were ordered, filed and exchanged. In his statement of defence, the respondent denied the appellant’s claim. The respondent also counter claimed as follows: -
-
a
"A declaration that the defendant is the rightful owner and the holder of the right of occupancy over the property situate and known as No. 36 Kigo Road, Nassarawa Village, Kaduna.
-
b
An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff or his agent servants from committing any act of trespass on the premises situated at No. 36, Kogi Road, Nassarawa Village, Kaduna (AL 10 Kudendan Village, Kaduna).
-
c
An Order holding that the sale agreement between the plaintiff and the plaintiff and the defendant dated the 12/2/90 is valid and subsisting.
-
d
A declaration that the plaintiff is only entitled to the sum of thirty-five thousand (N35, 000.00), being the consideration for the sale and purchase of the said property less the sum of N12, 220.00 (Twelve Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty Naira), the had been collected by him as rent on the said property.
-
e
An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff from further publishing any other defamatory statement against the defendant.
-
f
The sum of Fifty Thousand (N50,000.00) as damages for defamation and costs”.
At the trial the appellant, who was the plaintiff at the lower court, testified and also called another witness who testified on his behalf. The defendant testified on his behalf. At the conclusion of trial, the trial court dismissed the appellant’s claims in their entirety and granted the respondent’s counter-claim holding that since the agreement between the parties was a contract under seal the sale was valid even without the respondent furnishing consideration.
Dissatisfied with the judgment, the appellant to the Court of Appeal. There appellant contended inter alia that exhibit 2 (the sale agreement) was not a contract under seal but a simple contract requiring consideration which was lacking. He then submitted that the respondent could therefore not claim any right under exhibit 2.
