The Court of Appeal in Abuja has strongly criticized property developer and lawyer Cecil Osakwe for unethical practices, stating that he attempted to profit twice from the sale of a property.

The court overturned a previous ruling by the FCT High Court, restoring ownership of two luxury apartments in Abuja’s Maitama district to Ms. Asabe Waziri. The appellate court rescinded the decision of Justice Othman Musa, which had returned the apartments to Abeh Signatures Ltd and its CEO, Osakwe.

The appellate court also faulted the trial judge for straying from the facts of the case, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

In 2022, Osakwe had petitioned the FCT High Court to revoke the sale contract of the apartments due to Ms. Waziri’s method of payment, which he alleged violated the Money Laundering Act.

The company claimed that the buyer made a cash payment of $40,000, and bank transfers worth $100,000, and through Bureau de Change.

It also claimed that the defendant presented herself as a business woman whereas she is a civil servant working with the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL).

Due to these reasons, Osakwe offered to pay back the money paid for the apartments and recover them from the defendant.

The defendant however denied the claims of the defendant (plaintiff) , saying she only paid $5,000 from the N130,000 agreed after he requested that he needed dollars and presented evidence of all transfers made to the property developer’s accounts.

Delivering judgment, the trial judge ordered that the properties be reverted back to the plaintiff.

He also ordered the plaintiff to pay back the sum of N150million, being money deposited, to the defendant.

The defendant however denied the claims of the defendant (plaintiff) , saying she only paid $5,000 from the N130,000 agreed after he requested that he needed dollars and presented evidence of all transfers made to the property developer’s accounts.

Delivering judgment, the trial judge ordered that the properties be reverted back to the plaintiff.

He also ordered the plaintiff to pay back the sum of N150million, being money deposited, to the defendant.

The judge said: “In view of the way and manner or mode of payment employed by the defendant in the purchase of the two flats at Abeh Court, belonging to the claimant, same has rendered the contract for the purchase of the properties void for violating money laundering laws”.

Not satisfied, Ms. Waziri had approached the Court of Appeal, challenging the decision of Justice Musa.

Represented by her lawyer, Henry Eni-Otu, she argued that the lower court relied solely on written statements (affidavits) without considering oral or documentary evidence to support the developer’s claim of money laundering against the Appellant.

Additionally, she questioned whether the trial judge could decide the case through originating summons given the conflicting information in the affidavits by the parties and the clear documentary evidence presented by the appellant.

In a unanimous verdict, the three-judge panel led by Justice Hamma Akawu Barka, comprising Justices Abba Bello Mohammed, and Okon Efreti Abang, set aside the lower court’s judgment in its entirety and awarded costs of N500,000 to the appellant, Ms. Waziri.

The appellate court justices said the trial court judge veered off the track in his reasoning and occasioned miscarriage of justice.

Justice Barka, delivering the lead judgment, supported the appellant lawyer’s argument, stating that "it is well-established legal principle that a party seeking declaratory reliefs must prove their entitlement to such reliefs based on the merits of their own case, and cannot rely solely on the weaknesses of the respondents’ case, unless such weaknesses support their own claim."

The lead justice concluded that the trial court’s judgment lacked credible evidence and amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

“The facts forming the respondent’s case before the lower court were contained in the affidavit in support of the originating summons. The appellant as defendant filed a counter affidavit and therein sought to clarify all the material allegations made by the respondent in his affidavit in support to the originating summons. In particular with respect to the allegations of cash payments of forty thousand dollars was part of the cost of building, thus offending the provisions of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, defendant vehemently denied the averment posting further that the only money she paid in dollars was five thousand dollars in cash made to the alter ego of the respondent on request.

Surprisingly, on all the exhibits attached to the affidavit in support of the originating summons, none mentioned the fact of payment of forty thousand dollars in cash in satisfaction of the sale agreement. In the same vein, as argued, the allegation of the identity of the appellant which the respondent relied upon as a ground to vitiate the concluded transaction was not substantiated and appellant having joined issues on those facts, it behoves the respondents to lay facts of proof in support of those allegations”.

The justice said the respondent, apart from mere allegations made, failed to sustain it by producing tangible evidence to back up the assertion.

“On the contrary, the appellant not only controverted the allegations but went further to supply evidence through email exchanges, details of accounts and evidence of payment to debunk allegations pertaining to her identity”.

Justice Barka therefore declared: “It is clear that the respondent, having benefited more from the transaction, seeks to vitiate the contract possibly to further benefit from it. I agree with the appellant’s counsel that the appeal is destined for success and should be allowed. Hence, having resolved all issues in favor of the appellant, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja in suit No: CV/2435/2021, delivered on February 17, 2022, is hereby set aside, and all actions taken consequent to the said judgment also stand vacated. The appellant is entitled to costs assessed at N500,000. Appeal allowed.”

Concurring with the lead judgment, Justice Abba Bello Mohammed stated: "As outlined in the lead judgment, the respondent failed to provide sufficient and credible evidence to establish their entitlement to the declaratory reliefs sought. Instead, they relied on criminal allegations that they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt with the contested affidavit evidence submitted with their originating summons. Therefore, the trial court’s judgment in favor of the respondent lacked any credible basis."

Justice Abang also agreed with the lead judgment, stating: "I fully concur that my Lord comprehensively examined and resolved all the issues raised in the appeal."