CaseLaw
Ughutevbe V. Shonowo (2004) CLR 6(d) (SC)
Judgement delivered on June 4th 2004
Brief
Facts
Briefly the case for the Appellant is that his late father, Dick Ughutevbe bought residue of the leasehold interest held by Chief M.A.K. Shonowo, the father of the 1st Respondent in respect of a piece or parcel of land with Registered Title No. MO.1050 at No.1 Omode Lane, Apapa. Appellant acknowledged that it was the name of the 1st Respondent that the father of the 1st Respondent, Chief M.A.K. Shonowo, wrote in the document of purchase when Appellant's father bought the property. The deed of lease in respect of the property, MO.1050 was executed on 20th November 1969 following the payment of the sum of £10,000 to Chief M.A.K. Shonowo for the property which he had bought from one Abdulahi Mohammed for £4,000 and was executed on September 3, 1959. Following the purchase of the property and with a registered title deed dated 7th January 1970, Dick Ughutevbe was put in effective possession of the land, From then on he claimed that he exercised maximum rights of ownership over the property, which he claimed was sold to him by the father of the 1st Respondent who told him at the time that the property was his and he was therefore free to deal with it as he wanted. It was in that belief that Appellant bought the property which was clearly registered in the name of O.O Shonowo and which he subsequently knew to be the 1st Respondent, the son of Chief M.A.K. Shonowo.
On the other hand, the case of the 1st Respondent may be put thus. It is not in dispute that the 1st Respondent is the son of Chief M.A.K. Shonowo now deceased. The 1st Respondent stated that when he was about the age of 14 years, and was still at school, his father, Chief M.A.K Shonowo bought the property in dispute for him. His father paid for the property and he signed the document relating to its purchase. This document he identified as Exhibit A and it was signed in the presence of his late father. As the time of the purchase, 1st Respondent claimed that his father told him that he bought the property for him because he was his first child to go to secondary school at the time. And his father added that he was very happy with him because he was doing well. His father also told him that the rent that would be collected from the property would be used for the maintenance and education of the 1st Respondent. And when he finished his education, the property would be there for him to live in as his residence.
1st Respondent claimed that that was how matters stood until he went to the U.S.A. for his further education at the Harvard Medical School in Washington. He did not return to Nigeria until 1971 when his father died. He stayed for only a month for the burial. He denied that he signed Exhibit B, with which the property was purportedly transferred to the Appellant. He added that he did not execute the transfer of the document nor did he authorise anyone to execute same of his behalf. Following enquires he made at the Lands Registry in Lagos, he commended this action against the Appellant and the 1st Respondent. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge found against the 1st Respondent in respect of his claims. But before then he had struck out paragraphs 4-7 of the amended reply. This is because the Court formed the view that they offended against Order 16 Rule 25 of Lagos State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 1972 in that they raised a new ground of claim inconsistent with the Appellant's previous pleading.
Dissatisfied with the decision of the learned trial Court, the Plaintiff as Appellant, appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal in a well considered judgment overturned the judgment of the trial Court and restored as the judgment of the Court the judgment which the trial Court stated that it would have given, had it not struck our paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Amended Reply filed by the Plaintiff.
Dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal the 1st Defendant as Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.