It was the plaintiff’s case, that after the revocation of his title to the suit premises, he engaged the 1st defendant to act as his agent in processing the restoration of the title to him. He however claims that, in breach of his fiduciary duties, the 1st defendant fraudulently induced the Commissioner for Lands to transfer the suit premises to the 2nd defendant without the 2nd defendant providing consideration for the transfer. As a result, the plaintiff suffered loss and damages of which the 1st and 2nd defendants were jointly and severally liable.
Denying the claims, the two defendants, averred that the plaintiff and the 1st defendant agreed that the 1st defendant would follow up on the restoration of the suit premises and then purchase the suit premises. That the suit premises was transferred to the 2nd defendant with the consent of the plaintiff and that there was neither agent relationship nor conversion of the suit premises but rather a vendor and purchase relationship between the parties.