The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division has struck out a ground of appeal challenging the N2 million costs awarded against Vintage Villas Real Estate Company Limited and its co-appellants in a property dispute involving Unaeze Augusta Uchenna, holding that the appellants required leave of court to challenge the costs awarded by the trial court.
The decision was contained in a unanimous judgment of a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal, delivered on Tuesday by Justice Okon Abang in appeal No. CV/ABJ/1603/2025 between Vintage Villas Real Estate Company Limited and Unaeze Augusta Uchenna.
The appeal arose from a judgment delivered by the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, on October 2, 2025, in favour of the respondent over the purchase and allocation of two units of three-bedroom flats at Heaven Estate, Dakibiyu District, Abuja.
In addressing the challenge to the N2 million costs awarded by the trial court, Justice Abang held that the appellants could not competently appeal against the award without first obtaining the requisite leave of court under Section 241(2)(c) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
The appellate court consequently struck out the relevant ground of appeal and the issue formulated from it.
Justice Abang explained that although an appeal against a final decision of a High Court could generally be brought on grounds of fact or law, the Constitution specifically restricts appeals relating solely to costs, requiring leave of court.
He faulted both parties’ counsel for their respective arguments on the issue, holding that the respondent’s objection that the appellants cannot challenge the costs award without obtaining the constitutionally required leave of court.
The appellate court noted that the trial court delivered its judgment on October 2, 2025, while the appellants filed their notice of appeal in November 2025 without obtaining the necessary leave to challenge the N2 million costs award and held that, the relevant ground of appeal was incompetent and accordingly struck it out.
The dispute arose from the respondent’s purchase of two units of three-bedroom flats at Heaven Estate, Abuja.
According to documents presented before the court, the respondent began the transaction in 2022 after the appellants advertised the properties. She initially paid N5 million and subsequently made additional payments towards the purchase.
The respondent maintained that she paid a total of N54 million for the two apartments and that the parties executed a contract agreement on May 5, 2022, alleging that, despite completing the agreed payments, the appellants subsequently demanded additional sums, including N1.7 million and N19.9 million, before handing over the properties.
The respondent contended that the additional demands were outside the terms of the agreement and that the appellants failed to deliver possession of the apartments as agreed.
The appellants, however, disputed the allegations of contractual breach. They maintained that the properties had been allocated to the respondent and that she was invited to an open-house ceremony held on October 31, 2024.
According to the appellants, the respondent was subsequently asked to collect her final allocation letters and execute a facility management agreement but rejected the documents.
The dispute eventually led to litigation at the FCT High Court, which entered judgment in favour of the respondent and awarded N2 million in costs against the defendants.
Dissatisfied with the decision, the appellants approached the Court of Appeal, raising nine grounds of appeal and formulating five issues for determination.
The appellants argued that the respondent’s counter-affidavit was filed outside the prescribed time and that aspects of the affidavit contravened the applicable procedural rules and provisions of the Evidence Act.
They contended that the trial court ought not to have relied on the processes in reaching its decision.
The respondent, on the other hand, argued that any irregularity in filing the affidavit was not fundamental enough to defeat her case, maintaining that the appellants took further steps in the proceedings without first formally challenging the alleged irregularity.
In addressing the procedural dispute, Justice Abang emphasised that courts are bound to enforce their rules of procedure where those rules prescribe how parties must conduct proceedings.
On the whole, the court struck out the appeal and affirmed the judgement of the trial court and awarded no cost.
END
Comments