ODUFUNADE V. ROSSEK

• Pages: 68-72

68



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES [1962] N.S.C.C.

ODUFUNADE V. ROSSEK

5

J.A.O. ODUFUNADE



APPELLANT

V

ANTOINE ROSSEK



RESPONDENT



10

SUIT NO. FSC 358/1960

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT

ADEMOLA,



C.J.F.

UNSWORTH,



F.J.

BAIRAMIAN,



F.J.

12th February, 1962.

Practice and Procedure - Grounds - Judgment against weight of evidence Wizen

not available to appellant.

Agency - Estate against -

C017117liSSi011 -

Construction.

Land Law - Compulsory acquisition of lands - Leaseholds - Extinguishment of

Reversion - tran.sfer to Government under Compulsory Acquisition order - Not

transfer unde7 Contract of Sale.

ISSUES:

1.

Whether the ground of appeal that a judgment is against the weight of evidence

is always available to an appellant.

2.

Whether transfer of interest in land to a Government under the terms of a



30

Compulsory purchase order, made in pursuance of a statute is a transfer under

a contract of Sale.

3.

Whether an agency agreement over taken by a compulsory acquisition order

of Government is still binding on a principal. Would payment of commission

still be enforced?



35

4.

Whether any reversionary interest remains where land is compulsorily acquired.

FACTS:

The respondent was the lessee of certain lands and premises in Lagos. In Au-

gust 1956, he appointed the appellant, an estate agent as his agent for the sale of

the said leaseholds and agreed in writing to pay him 10% on any amount paid by



40

a client introduced by the appellant who was willing and ready to take an assign-

ment of the lease.

The appellant mentioned the property to the Chief Federal Land Officer, where-

upon some correspondence of an informative kind passed between the Federal

Government and the respondent's solicitors. The correspondence did not amount



45

to negotiations for the purchase of leaseholds. Government however negotiated

to acquire the lands compulsorily and thereby obtain the fee simple and other sub-

sidiary interests. Compensation was paid to the respondent's surveyors.

The appellant claimed the 10% Commission as per contract, but the respond-

ent said that he was only entitled to such under a contract of sale and not a com-



50

pulsory acquisition. Trial Court dismissed appellant's claim and he appealed

contending that the judgment was against the weight of evidence and that the com-

pulsory acquisi'ion could not deny him of the commission.

15

20

25