Background
On 07 May 2018, the 2nd Appellant, Professor Pastor Steve Iyayi, engaged the Respondent, Mr. Nosa Uwagboe, to source a residential property for the 1st Appellant, Pastor Peter Ogbondeminu, State Pastor of Living Faith Church (Winners). Respondent secured Plot 7476, Etete Layout, Benin City, for ₦65,000,000. Upon completion, he demanded a professional fee of 5% (₦3,250,000) of the purchase price. The Appellants contended the Church’s Registered Trustees alone contracted property agents and had agreed to pay only ₦500,000 in total agency fees to other agents, Mr. Raphael Ijiekhuemhen (DW1) and Mr. Nelson Ugbekile (DW2). Respondent sued the Appellants in the Magistrate’s Court, claiming ₦3,400,000 (including costs). The Appellants raised a Preliminary Objection, arguing the Church’s Trustees were not joined, thereby ousting jurisdiction. The Magistrate dismissed the objection, heard the matter on its merits, and awarded Respondent ₦3,400,000 on 31 January 2020.
Dissatisfied, the Appellants filed Notice of Appeal on 03 February 2020 challenging: (1) jurisdiction for want of proper parties; (2) sufficiency of evidence for the ₦3,400,000 award; (3) admission of certain exhibits; and (4) irregularities in witness examination. They distilled two issues: proper parties/jurisdiction and appropriateness of Respondent as sole agent justifying the award. Counsel for both parties adopted these issues at hearing before Hon. Justice P.A. Akhihiero, delivering judgment on 25 May 2022.
Issues
- Did the trial magistrate err in assuming jurisdiction where the Church’s Registered Trustees, as principal parties to the purchase, were not joined?
- Did the evidence support the finding that the Respondent was the appropriate person engaged as sole agent and entitled to ₦3,250,000 plus ₦150,000 costs?
Ratio Decidendi
- The identity of proper parties is determined by the plaintiff’s own claim; absence of an alleged principal must be proved by the party alleging it (section 139 Evidence Act).
- He who asserts must prove: the burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the fact (section 131 Evidence Act).
- Court may not rely on documents not tendered as exhibits; unadmitted documents carry no evidential weight.
- To establish agency, evidence of express authority or ratification must be adduced; mere call logs or isolated texts are insufficient.
Court Findings
On Issue 1, the Court held the Appellants were proper defendants as the Respondent’s statement of claim expressly alleged a contract with them, and no deed of assignment was produced to displace that position. D.W.1’s admission that the purchase occurred in the 1st Appellant’s name reinforced their party status. On Issue 2, the Court found Respondent’s proof inadequate: Exhibit G (call logs) lacked transcripts, and the single text “We are estate agents the pastor use for church” did not establish express engagement. Conversely, D.W.1 and D.W.2 gave credible testimony that they, not Respondent solely, were agents and received ₦500,000 fee. Respondent’s vague reference to professional scales was unsupported by any document or credible oral evidence.
Conclusion
The appeal succeeds. The Magistrate Court’s judgment of 31 January 2020 is set aside. No award lies for Respondent. Appellants are awarded costs of ₦100,000.
Significance
This decision reinforces that plaintiffs define proper parties by their pleadings and must prove any alleged omissions. It highlights the strict evidential requirements under the Evidence Act for establishing agency and professional fee entitlements, cautioning against reliance on unsubstantiated electronic communications and unfiled documents.