“No Matter How Beautiful An Address Is, It Won’t Take The Place of Evidence”, Court Rules

*Dismisses Suit Challenging Ownership of 4 Bedroom Duplex With Self-Contained Bedroom For Lack of Evidence

A High Court sitting In Lagos, has dismissed the suit challenging the ownership of 4-bedroom Duplex with self-contained 1 bedroom Chalet, situated at No. 49B Lafiaji Way, Dolphin Estate, Ikoyi, Lagos State.

Justice Bola Okikiolu-Ighile, dismissed the suit stating that the evidence of the claimant, Air Commodore Onitju, before the court does not support any of the reliefs sought in the writ.

Air Commodore Ademola Onitju (Rtd), in CHARGE NO: LD/3240/20 instituted the matter against Theodosia Olabisi Ogunnaike, Omo Ogunnaike, Colonel Samuel Abayomi Dare(Rtd), and Lagos State Development Property Corporation contending the purported sale of land where he lived.

Air Commodore Ademola Onitju, from 1st December, 2016 to 30th November, 2021 lived at No. 49B Lafiaji Way, Dolphin Estate, Ikoyi, Lagos which is the property of of the 1st and 2nd Defendants and they had cordial land-tenant relationships, as contained in the judgment.

In March 2021, the Defendants agreed to sale the property and contracted their agent Iwelumo & Iwelumo and the said house was offered to the claimant as “FIRST OPTION” at the price of N130,000,000, but since he was not ready to purchase the land, the property was purportedly sold to the 3rd Defendant, Colonel Samuel Abayomi Dare(Rtd).

Onitju, in his statement of claim prayed the court for the following reliefs:

A declaration that the purported sale of 4-bedroom Duplex with self-contained 1 bedroom Chalet, situated at No. 49B Lafiaji Way, Dolphin Estate, Ikoyi, Lagos State to the 3rd party is null and void of no effect.

A Declaration that the Defendant is the one entitled to Stautory Right of Occupancy in respect of the said property.

An Order of court setting aside the purported sale as well as an Order of Specific Performance of the contract of sale of the property between the him and the 1st & 2nd Defendants.

A perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants either by themselves, servants, agents, privies from interfering or executing documents to transfer the title of the property and or enforcing the Notice to Quit dated 19th May, 2021

In Defence the counsel to the Defendants G. I. Oparaji, argued that the claimant counter offered the sum for N100,000,000, comparing the property with other properties in the neighborhood.

He said it became clear that the claimant lacked the fund to purchase the said property therefore the offer was thrown open to the general public (open market).

He further stated that the 2 counter offers by the claimant gave rise to the termination of the contractual relationship between the Defendants which shows that there was no acceptance to the offer of sale of the property.

Justice Bola, delivering her judgment on 20th June, 2022, stated that there was no formal or legal agreement between the parties and that the discussion the Claimant had with the 1st Defendant via WhatsApp does not constitute an Agreement.

“The claimant however did not state before the court in his evidence at what time the parties had legal contact between them regarding the offer of sale of the property.

“The evidence proffered by the Claimant himself did not establish any legal contact.

“He admitted he did not pay any amount towards the sale of the property reasons that he was being careful and he found that the 1st Defendant was not the owner of the property and demanded for the account number to pay the price into the but the Agent neglected/refused to give to him an Account number.

“As at the time the Claimant testified, he sought for an account number, the evidence before the court show that the claimant was no longer enjoying the benefits of first option to purchase. Generally, there’s an expiration date shown to 1st option.

“In this instant case it was 4 weeks. I note that an option is a contract, it must identify the parties clearly and describe the properties set forth the purchase price and provide consideration to each party in order to satisfy the most basic requirements of a binding contract.

“This option has an expiration date attached in this instant case; the Claimant did not provide any consideration.

“There’s another letter, exhibit PWA2B from the Agent to the Claimant notifying the claimant that from the date of the letter 19th May, 2021, and a Formal Quit Notice which would expire on the 30th Nov. 2021, was quietly introduced and issued.”

The court further noted that the final address of all the learned counsel were very useful.

“I however, must further state that the Written Address of the Learned Counsel to the claimant was very brilliant however most of the issues canvassed did not form part of the Evidence of the case in this court.

“It is however, trite no matter how beautiful or brilliant an Address is written, it will not take the place of evidence.

“The case of the Claimant is benefit of facts.

“In conclusion, the court has placed the evidence of the Claimant on one side and that of the Defendants on the other proverbial as imaginary scale and aimed at its decision.

“ It is obvious where the scale tilts.

“The Claimant’s case therefore hails in its entirety and it is dismissed.

“I find it difficult to grant the reliefs sought in the claim (i)-(Vii).

“The Claimant shall relinquish possession of the property to the new owner, the 3rd Defendant FORTHWITH”.