The Respondent is a trader residing in Jos. At the material time he dealt in automobile batteries in his store at Nos.35 Ayeni Street, Jos. The 1st Defendant is a native doctor. Sometime in September, 1987, the 1st Defendant went to that store and bought a battery from the Respondent. He did not pay for it but asked that the money be collected from him in his house. The Respondent went with him to his house at No.19 Bauchi Road, Jos. They rode in the 1st Defendant's car. On the way they got engaged in conversation introduced by the 1st Defendant. This eventually ended in the arrangement for him, as a native doctor, to help the Respondent into prosperity in his business. The 1st Defendant prepared some herbal concoctions in three stages for this purpose for the Respondent's use. The first stage was a black native soap for bathing. After use, there was no sign of the business improving. The Respondent then went back to the 1st Defendant whereupon he was given what looked like maize pap which was mixed with a black powdery substance to drink. That was the second stage. But still, after some time there was no improvement in his business.

The Respondent went back to the 1st Defendant to complain that nothing had changed for the better in his prosperity. The 1st Defendant then asked to be taken to the Respondent's house.

There, the 1st Defendant expressed surprise that the Respondent had such a big house. He then contrived a third stage. The Respondent would leave the house so that the 1st Defendant would prepare and keep a talisman in the house. The Respondent who was unmarried and lived alone agreed. He vacated the house and took abode with friends. He had been warned by the 1st Defendant not to let anyone know what was going on. Later, the Respondent who was now unable to help himself emotionally and in reaching decisions rational decisions signed away his house to the 1st Defendant - in different documents - at the 1st Defendant’s shrine. These are exhibits A and C, registerable though unregistered instruments. Both were drawn up in what I regard to be in flimsy form. There was no consent to alienate as required by Section 22 of the Land Use Act. This issue of consent was never raised throughout the proceedings. I have merely mentioned it along with the nature of the documents to indicate the sheer casualness of the transaction.

The Respondent filed his action in December, 1987, and the statement of claim in March, 1988. The 1st Defendant filed his statement of defence in April, 1988. While the case had reached that stage, the 1st Defendant sold the property in dispute to the Respondent and thereafter absconded. He has not been seen ever since. He gave no evidence in support of his statement of defence.

In his statement of defence, the Appellant proceeded to narrate how he came to buy the house from the 1st Defendant. He averred that he was not aware of any dispute about the house at the time he purchased it until when he was joined as a Co-Defendant. The Respondent gave evidence of the entire incident and how he left his house and stayed with one Alex Fom who gave evidence as p.w.3.

The learned trial Judge (L.N. Emefo, J.) gave judgment for the Respondent as Plaintiff. This was affirmed, as I have said, by the Court of Appeal. The Appellant has now further appealed.