PARTICULARS: 1. In proof of his ownership of the vehicle GAC 35 2019 model which was attached in order to satisfy the Respondent’s judgment sum against one Mr Ugo Chuku Oyedika the Appellant has presented at the trial a sale offer sent to him by Vistegio Technology Solutions (“the Company”) dated 20th May 2021, the payment receipt issued to him by the Company dated 21st May 2021 and the bank account statement showing how the Appellant paid the purchase price to the Company as Exhibits “Mundubawa 1A”, “Mundubawa 1C” and “MB2” respectively 2. Attached to exhibit “Mundubawa 1A” is “Munudbawa 1B” – a form of acceptance of the offer sent to the Appellant by the Company. 3. The learned trial Magistrate faulted the Appellant for not accepting the offer strictly by signing the Exhibit “Mundubawa 1B” and disregarded the conduct of the parties. 4. An offer can be accepted by conduct of the parties not necessarily by a written document. GROUND 3: The learned trial Chief Magistrate erred in law when he allowed the respondent to attach the vehicle GAC 35 2019 model which does not belong to the Judgment Debtor in order to satisfy his judgment. PARTICULARS: 1. At the trial, the Appellant has deposed to that the vehicle GAC 35 2019 model has never been a property of the judgment debtor and presented documentary evidence in proof thereof. 2. The Appellant has further deposed to that the premises at where the vehicle was attached is not an exclusive residence or place of work of the judgment debtor and that the respondent did not counter the depositions. 3. The respondent can only be permitted to attach property of the judgment debtor in order to satisfy his judgment sum. GROUND 4: The Chief Magistrate erred in law when he placed the burden of proof of ownership of the vehicle GAC 35 2019 model on the Appellant. 2