IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
ON Friday, the 2nd day of March 1979
SC.89/1975
Between
J.O.O.IMANA ............APPELLANT
And
MADAM JARIN ROBINSON ..........RESPONDENT
The Appellant sold and conveyed (as beneficial owner) a parcel of land situate in Benin City of which she alleged was seized "in fee simple in possession free from incumbrances" to the Respondent in consideration of a sum of £245.
The Respondent proceeded to develop the land and was still doing so when he was challenged by a third party who laid claim to title to the land, upon which he informed the Appellant who took no steps to stop the third party. The third party was later declared to possess title to the land by a Court of competent jurisdiction and consequently the Respondent was dispossessed of the piece of land.
The Respondent then sued the Appellant in the Benin High Court and judgement was entered for the Respondent for special damages only and costs. The Respondent neither gave evidence nor tendered any document in the High Court. The Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD:
(1) Not having given evidence either in support of her pleadings or in challenge of the evidence of the plaintiff, the defendant must be assumed to have accepted, the facts adduced by the plaintiff notwithstanding her general traverse denying each and every allegation of fact contained in the plaintiff's statement of claim save as already expressly admitted.
(2) It is clear to us that once pleadings have been settled and issues joined the duty of the Court is to proceed to the trial of the issues and if one party fails or refuses to submit the issues he has raised in his pleadings for trial by giving or calling evidence in their support, the trial Judge must, unless there are other legal reasons dictating to the contrary, resolve the case against the defaulting party.
(3) There is a distinction between the principle of caveat emptor as it applies to sale of land and as it applies to sale of goods. The stringent rule of caveat emptor as it applied to land, has been considerably watered down by the rules of equity which enjoin a vendor of land to make disclosures to the purchaser and forbids him to conceal essential facts, in his title. This distinction has necessarily got to be so, by the very nature in each case, of the res vendeta.
(4) Logically, following the implied covenant for title in a sale of land as beneficial owner, the law imposes on a vendor not only the negative duty not to conceal but also the positive duty to disclose any defect in his title. In short the law imposes on a vendor in a conveyance the duty to tell the truth. Silence will amount to misrepresentation.
(5) A defect in title to land is not easily ascertainable as one would easily discover a defect in respect of specific goods. A person buying a pair of trousers will examine the trousers and easily discover if it has any defects, and if he fails to discover the defects and buys, he has only himself and not the vendor, to blame. This is not the case with a purchaser of a parcel of land. The purchaser cannot look at the bare ground of either a bare bush or a developed property and discover whether or not the vendor's title to it is defective. A recourse must be had to the title documents (excepting most grants by Native Law and custom) which the vendor possesses. A purchaser must of course always take care, but this does not mean that in taking care the law is requiring him to take a chance.
(6) The gravamen of the respondent's claim was for breach of covenant for title, the alleged breach of quiet enjoyment being consequential upon the breach of covenant for title and separable from it. Again where the covenants for title are general and by their language absolute against all persons, they will not be qualified by reference to other covenants unless there are words either in the absolute covenants themselves or elsewhere in the instrument to connect them. And so in this case, the learned Judge rightly treated the covenants as severable.
(7) The term "Strict Proof" required in proof of special damages means no more than that the evidence must show the same particularity as is necessary for its pleading. It should therefore normally consist of evidence of particular losses which are exactly known or accurately measured before the trial. Strict Proof does not mean unusual proof, as the play of appellant's counsel on those words tended to suggest, but simply implies that a plaintiff who has the advantage of being able to base his claim upon a precise calculation must give the defendant access to the facts which make such calculation possible.
(8) The law has been well stated where it was laid down that there has been actual eviction the measure of damages includes the amount expended in converting the land to the purpose for which it was bought, and that the purchaser may recover, not merely the value of the land, but also the amount spent on the erection of houses subsequent to his conveyance. The purchaser may also, in the case of actual eviction, under the name of damages, recover interest or mesne profits for the time during which he has been out of possession and also consequential damages, legal cost, monies advanced for building, cost of plans and cost of clearing the land for building.
(9) On the issue of the difference between the amount stated as the consideration in the conveyance (£245) and the amount (£302) stated as the ("purchase price" in the particulars of special damages in paragraph 12 of the Statement of Claim, the respondent gave evidence of various other sums of money he expended which, added to the £245, came to the sum of £302. This evidence in no way contradicted or varied the conveyance, Exhibit C, in the way envisaged by Section 131 of The Evidence Act Cap. 62.
Appeal dismissed.
M. K. Gbajabiamila for the Appellant.
S. Akele for the Respondent.
Cases referred to:
1. A. Y. Ojikutu v. Z. O. Demuren (1957) 2 F.S.C. 72 at 73.
2. Bunny v. Hopkinson (1859) 27 Bear 565, 29 LJ ch. 93.
3. Edwazde v. M'Leav (1815) G. Coop. 308 at 312.
4. Grosvenor Hotel Co. v. Hamilton (1894) 2 QB 636: 6L.J. QB 661.
5. Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) Ex. 341.
6. Joseph Constantine Streamship Line Ltd. v. Imperial Smelting Corporation (1942) A.C. 154.
7. King v. Jones (1814) Taun 418 at 422.
8. Obediah Ashaye v. Mrs V. I. Akerele (1966) 1 All N.L.R. 294 at 299, 300.
9. Perestrello v. United Paints Co., (1969) 1 W.L.R. 570 at 579.
10. Pickup v. Thames Ins. Co. 3 Q.B.D. 594, 600.
11. Re Bannister, (1879) 12 Ch.D. at 143.
12. Re Marsh and Earl Grandville, (1883) 24 Ch.D. 11 at 17.
13. Redgrave v. Hurd (1885) A.E.R. 77.
14. Seldon v. Davidson (1968) 11 W.L.R. 1083.
15. Smith v. Compton (1832) 3 B & Ad. 189.
16. The Gold Coast and Ashanti Electric Development Corporation Ltd. v. The Attorney-General of the Gold Coast (1937) 3 W.A.C.A. 215.
17. Wakelin v. L. & S.W., Rv. 12 App. Cas. 41, 45.
18. Wallis v. Russel (1902) I.R. 565.
Statutes referred to:
1. Conveyancing Act 1881.
2. Evidence Act Cap. 62.
3. Law of Property Act 1925.
4. Property and Conveyancing Law 1959.
5. Sale of Goods Act 1893.
ANIAGOLU, J.S.C.:-The defendant, who is the appellant in this appeal, by a Conveyance (tendered in evidence as Exhibit C and dated 12th October 1966), sold and conveyed a parcel of land, situate in Benin City, of which she alleged was seized "in fee simple in possession free from incumbrances", to the plaintiff/respondent in consideration of a sum of £245. She described herself, in the Deed of Conveyance, as the "beneficial owner". The plaintiff proceeded to develop the land and to make improvements thereon in the course of which he was challenged by a third party (one Uwensuyi Edosomwan) who laid claim to title to the land-a title which he later successfully established in court, leading to the dispossession of the plaintiff of the piece of land. The plaintiff in turn took action against the defendant claiming as follows:
"The Plaintiff's claim against the Defendant is for the sum of £2,066:19:8d (Two thousand and sixty-six pounds, nineteen shillings and eight pence) and £100 (One hundred pounds) being special and general damages respectively for breach of covenants for title contained in and quiet enjoyment implied in a Deed of Conveyance dated 12/10/66 of a parcel of land and made between the Defendant-Madam Jarin Robinson one part and the Plaintiff-Josiah Oswald Omanigbuan Imana-on the other part. The said parcel of land situates in Ward 23L, Benin City within the Benin Judicial Division."
The case came for determination in the Benin High Court before Ogbobine, J. In a careful and particularly well considered judgement Ogbobine J. dealt with the issues of fact and law and entered judgement for the plaintiff against the defendant for special damages only, and costs.
From this judgement the defendant has appealed to this court and filed the following grounds of appeal:
(1) The learned trial Judge erred in law holding
(i) that there had been breach of the implied covenant for title be the defendant/appellant in the circumstances of this case; or
(ii) that the judgement in Suit Number B/28/67 between Edosomwan and Imana constituted such a breach.
(2) The learned trial Judge misdirected himself on the doctrine of "Caveat Emptor" which is applicable to the circumstances of this case by holding that it was for the defendant/appellant to disclose defects in her title and not for plaintiff/respondent to investigate it when the claim for damages arose not out of "contract" but out of an "executed conveyance of land".
"(3) The learned trial Judge misdirected himself in law as to the measure of damages in this case by allowing the plaintiff/respondent to recover more than "the purchase price" on the basis of total failure of consideration when he held thus: "I consider the proper course is to treat the purchase price and other expenses as standing in the same position and each as having been paid for a consideration which has wholly failed."
(4) In view of his own apparent finding that the defendant/appellant was not in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment, the learned trial Judge erred in law when he nevertheless, held that the proper measure of damages is the total amount actually and reasonably expended by the plaintiff/respondent up to the date when the High Court declared that the land belonged to a third party; and (i) because, the adjudication being upon the breach of the implied covenant for title, or for total failure of consideration on account thereof, the breach and damage if at all, was complete upon the execution of the conveyance; or (ii) because it was not Proved or found that the total money so expended or claimed as special damage was reasonably incurred, or directly in consequence of the said breach of covenant or that it was with full notice to the defendant/appellant.
(5) The learned trial Judge erred in law (i) when he awarded as a specific head of special damage, the money advanced on those buildings or (ii) the value of improvements on the land as well as the expenses of those improvements; and (iii) in accepting and awarding as an item of special damage, an amount in excess of the "consideration" or sum shown on the face of the conveyance as the purchase price for the land".
Mr M. K. Gbajabiamila appeared for the appellant. When in the course of his argument on the appeal we pointed out to him that no particulars were given in respect of the errors in law complained of in grounds 1, 3 and 5 he abandoned grounds 1 and 3 and sought leave of the court to argue ground 5 without the said particulars. Leave was granted, the respondent not objecting. Ground 4 dealt with quiet enjoyment in respect of which the learned trial Judge found for the defendant and refused to award damages. This ground of appeal therefore became irrelevant and this was pointed out to the appellant's Counsel in the course of his arguing that ground. In the result only grounds 2 and 5 were left to be seriously pursued.
At the conclusion of the hearing of the appeal we did not call upon Mr Suru Akele, who appeared for the Respondent, to reply as we were satisfied that no sufficiently valid argument had been advanced impugning the judgement of the learned trial Judge. Nonetheless judgement was reserved.
It is necessary to shortly recapitulate the salient facts adduced in evidence before the trial Judge. The plaintiff (now the respondent), who was a Commercial Officer in the Electricity Corporation of Nigeria, in 1965, bought a plot of land measuring 100 ft. × 100 ft. along the New Lagos Road, Benin City, from the defendant (now the appellant) for a total sum of £302 which included disbursements. He employed the services of a Surveyor to survey the land paying the fees thereof. He cleared the land, uprooting trees and stumps on the land. He employed the services of a Solicitor who prepared a Deed of Conveyance was duly stamped and registered and the plaintiff paid the fees. He got a Draughtsman to prepare a building plan which he did for a fee. He employed the services of a contractor who built the boy's quarters and constructed the foundations of the main building.
It was while the boys' quarters were being built that one Mr Edosomwan challenged the plaintiff's title to the land. He later wrote through his Solicitor in support of this challenge. The plaintiff complained to the defendant who told him that Mr Edosomwan had no valid title to the land, that she was the rightful owner of the land, and that the plaintiff should continue building on the land. She told him that Mr Edosomwan had no case. Mr Edosomwan however took action against the plaintiff which was heard in the High Court by Ighodaro, Acting Judge (as he then was), who found that Mr Edosomwan's case was well founded and declared the title to the land to be vested in him (Exhibit M). With this judgement, the plaintiff lost the land and naturally turned round to sue the defendant/appellant for a return of his purchase money and other disbursements and expenditures.
The defendant did not give evidence or call witnesses. At the close of plaintiff's case her Counsel stated: "We offer no evidence. We did not tender any document".
This case was heard on pleadings. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 are germane to the crux of the plaintiff's case:
(2) The Plaintiff bought a parcel of land measuring some 100 feet by 100 feet from the Defendant for £302.0.0 (Three hundred and two pounds) about March, 1965.
(3) The said parcel of land for which the Defendant received the said sum of £302.0.0d (Three hundred and two pounds) lies situate in Ward 23/L Uselu Quarters, Benin City.
(4) By a Deed dated 12 day of October, 1966, the Defendant, Madam Jarin Robinson formally conveyed the said parcel of land to the Plaintiff.
(5) The Defendant in the said Deed of conveyance represented that she had unencumbered freehold title to the said parcel of land. The aforesaid Deed of Conveyance will be founded upon at the trial.
(6) By a letter No. SOU/2/175/66 dated 28/12/66, the Solicitor of one Mr Uwensuyi Edosomwan challenged the right of the Plaintiff to, and claimed ownership of, the said parcel of land which the Plaintiff has prepared ready for his building.
(7) The Plaintiff informed the Defendant of Mr Uwensuyi Edosomwan's claim to the said land.
(8) The Defendant in reply confirmed her ownership of the said parcel of land and told the Plaintiff to ignore Mr Uwensuyi Edosomwan's claim.
(9) Relying on the Defendant's assurance in conjunction with the Defendant's covenants for title contained in and quiet enjoyment implied in the said Deed of Conveyance, the Plaintiff employed the services of a contractor to erect a Boys' Quarters and the main building on the said parcel of land.
(10) The said Mr Uwensuyi Edosomwan took no further steps in his claim to the parcel of land until after the completion of the Boys' Quarters and the foundation of the main building when he instituted legal proceedings against the Plaintiff claiming in Suit No. B/29/67 as follows:
(a) Declaration of title to the said parcel of land.
(b) Recovery of possession of the said parcel of land.
and
(c) An injunction to restrain the Plaintiff, his servants and agents and agents from interfering with the said parcel of land.
"(11) In the said action, judgement was given in favour of Mr Uwensuyi Edosomwan for his claims in paragraph 10 above with £52.10.0d costs against the Plaintiff. The judgement in Suit No. B/29/67 will be founded upon at the trial.
(12) As a result of the loss of the said parcel of land by the Plaintiff, he (the Plaintiff) suffered the following Special Damages. ..."
The plaintiff then gave particulars of the special damages.
Not having given evidence either in support of her pleadings or in challenge of the evidence of the plaintiff, the defendant must be assumed to have accepted the facts adduced by the plaintiff notwithstanding her general traverse as contained in her paragraph 6 of the Statement of Defence in which she averred that:
"(6) Save as hereinbefore expressly admitted, the defendant denies each and every allegation of fact contained in the plaintiff's Statement of Claim as if the same were set out herein serially and specifically denied".
Section 136 of the Evidence Act Cap. 62 firmly fixes the burden of proof in civil cases. It provides in sub-sections (1) and (2) that:
"136. (1) In civil cases the burden of first proving the existence or non-existence of a fact lies on the party if no evidence were produced on either side, regard being had to any presumption that may arise on the pleadings
(2) If such party adduces evidence which ought reasonably to satisfy a jury that the fact sought to be proved is established, the burden lies on the party against whom judgement would be given if no more evidence were adduced; and so on successively, until all the issues in the pleadings have been dealt with."
Dealing with the subject of the "Burden of proof on the pleadings" the 11th Edition of Phipson on Evidence has this to say at p.40 paragraph 92:
"The burden of proof, in this sense, rests upon the party, whether plaintiff or defendant, who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue. "It is an ancient rule founded on consideration of good sense, and it should not be departed from without strong reasons." It is fixed at the beginning of the trial by the state of the pleadings, and it is settled as a question of law, remaining unchanged throughout the trial exactly where the pleadings place it, and never shifting in any circumstances whatever. If, when all the evidence, by whomsoever introduced, is in, the party who has this burden has not discharged it, the decision must be against him." It cited as authorities the well known and familiar cases of Joseph Constantine Steamship Line Ltd. v. Imperial Smelting Corporation 1942 A.C. 154. 174; Seldon v. Davidson (1968) 1 W.L.R. 1083; Pickup v Thames Ins, Co. 3Q.B.D. 594. 600; and Wakelin v. L. & S.W.Rv., 12 App. Cas 41, 45.
It is clear to us that once pleadings have been settled, and issues joined, the duty of the court is to proceed to the trial of the issues (see: The Gold Coast and Ashanti Electric Power Development Corporation Ltd v. The Attorney-General of the Gold Coast (1937) 3 W.A.C.A. 215) and if one party fails or refuses to submit the issues he has raised in his pleadings for trial by giving or calling evidence in their support, the trial must, unless there are other legal reasons dictating to the contrary, resolve the case against the defaulting party.
A High Court of competent jurisdiction presided over by Ighodaro, J., had found and declared that the appellant had no title to pass, or transfer, to the respondent, and that the appellant knew at the time of the purported sale transaction with the respondent that she had no title to the land. In Exhibit M (the case between the present respondent as a defendant and Mr Edosomwan as the plaintiff) Ighodaro, J., specifically held that:
"On October, 1966 "(the date of the Conveyance by the appellant to the respondent) "Madam Robinson conveyed to the defendant 1523.50 sq. yds with knowledge that it was not free from incumbrances. Exhibit P".
Further on, he again held:
"It is quite clear from the documentary evidence above, that if the Oba properly made a grant to the plaintiff of the land in dispute then there was no more land given to the defendant, since the plaintiff was a different person from the defendant. And again, the Conveyance made by Mrs Robinson to the defendant was made in 1966 and she would be deemed to have had notice of the Conveyance made by the Oba to the plaintiff a year before in October 1965. On the recital in Mrs Robinson's Conveyance, there is reference to the vendor being in fee simple free from encumbrances. This is not correct. comparing the root of title of both the plaintiff's vendor and the defendant's vendor, in my view the plaintiff's vendor and the defendant's vendor, in my view the plaintiff has a better title to the land in dispute".
The conduct of the defendant in this land sale transaction had certainly some vestiges of fraud. Here was this appellant vendor who knew clearly that she had no title to the land in dispute (so found by Ighodaro, J.), nonetheless she proceeded to sell the land to the respondent and even when the respondent brought to her notice the fact that a third party was challenging his title to, and possession of, the land, she nonchalantly told him not to mind the third party and that he should proceed to develop the land. Even when proceedings for declaration of title, possession and injunction were taken out in the High Court (Exhibit M) against the respondent and judgment given against him, she merely told him that she would get a copy of the court proceedings and refer it to her lawyer for study. Thereafter, she did nothing about it. She did not seek to appeal against the judgment, or get her purchaser to appeal, or confer with the purchaser, or return her purchaser's money. Indeed, the evidence showed that she simply ignored the whole matter although she had not only the purchaser's purchase money in her pocket, but also had put him to considerable expenditure in developing the land. Callousness ought not, in all circumstances, be too strong a word to describe her indifference.
Before dealing with the specific points raised by the appellant in the grounds of appeal argued, it will perhaps, be worth the while if we paused and considered the general principles governing breach of covenant for title, and this may, perhaps, be best appreciated against the background of their legal history.
In medieval times of the Anglo-Saxon era, a purchaser of land had the benefit of the law of warranty for the safeguard of his estate, although it was the general rule that he, after making all his investigations, took the land at his own risk a risk put in legal phraseology as caveat emptor. This law of warranty took its origin from the feudal lord's duty to protect his tenant in exchange for his services. In 1290 by the statute of Qula Emptores, tenure between vendor and purchaser of a fee simple was abolished and it became customary for vendors to give an express warranty of title. If the purchaser was disturbed by anyone having a superior title, the vendor could be made liable in damages or, in the case of eviction, be compelled to give lands of equal value in compensation. This old law of warranty, bound up with real actions and feudal land law, fell out of use with them, and the old system of warranties was replaced by the practice of giving express covenants for title, the form for which became settled between 1606 and 1674. (See: Platt on Covenants p.304). In 1881 by the Conveyancing Act, 1881 (see: S.7 thereof, later replaced with amendments by S.76 of the Law of Property Act, 1925), it became unnecessary to give express covenants for title, since they were implied, if the conditions therein stipulated were satisfied. (See: The Law of Real Property by Megarry and Wade, 4th Edition pages 602-3).
One of these implied covenants is that a vendor in fee simple has title to the land he conveys and if that title is defective the purchaser is entitled to have the conveyance set aside. In the case of want of title it was held, as far back as 1815, in Edwazde v. M'Leav (1815) G. Coop 308 at 312 (a case which really dealt more with fraud than with breach of covenant for title) that the purchaser need not wait until eviction, but he may at once, claim to have the conveyance set aside.
This principle of law has been accepted by judicial pronouncements, and in the Midwestern State of Nigeria from where this case emanated, additionally by legal enactment. Abbott, R.J., delivering the judgement of the Federal Supreme Court in A.Y. Ojikutu v. Z. O. Demuren (1957) 2 F.S.C. 72 at p.73 brought clarity to the principle when he stated that:
"It is manifestly clear in the first place that a man who pays money for land is entitled in the normal course of events to value for his money, and a part of