United Cement Company Limited & Anor V. Libend Group Limited & Anor (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal is against the judgment of the Federal High Court, Calabar Judicial Division, delivered on June 28, 2013, in Suit No. FHC/CA/CS/52/2007. By the said judgment, the Court below coram, A.F.A. Ademola, J; granted all the reliefs sought by the 1st Respondent as per the Amended Writ of summons thereof.

BACKGROUND FACTS

On May 31, 2007, the 1st Respondent filed in the Court below a writ of summons along with a 23 paragraphed statement of claim seeking some declaratory and injunctive reliefs against both Appellants. See pages 4 – 11 of the Record of Appeal. By the Amended Writ of Summons and Amended Statement of Claim thereof filed on 27/3/09, the 1st Respondent sought the following reliefs against the Appellants and 2nd Respondent, jointly and severally:

(a) A DECLARATION that the defendants action in encroaching on the plaintiff’s mining site covered by Quarrying License No.QLS1380 and carrying on mining activities thereon without the permission of the plaintiff is illegal, unlawful and a violation of plaintiff?s right.

(b)AN

1

ORDER OF MANDATORY INJUNCTION directing the Appellants to forthwith vacate the plaintiffs mining site covered by Quarrying Lease No. QLS 1380 or any part thereof particularly the area shown in the Survey Plan dated 25/8/2006 showing the area of overlap.

(c)The sum of Five Hundred Million Naira (N500, 000,000.00) only as damages for mining on the plaintiffs land for the unlawful interference with and trespass on the plaintiffs Quarrying area.

OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE

(d) The sum of Four Billion, Eight Hundred and Twenty Million, Four Hundred Thousand Naira (N4, 820,400,000.00) only being the value of mineable limestone deposit in the area encroached upon.

See pages 120 – 127 of the Record.

By the 21 paragraph Amended Statement of Defence thereof, dated February 22, 2012, the Appellants and 2nd Respondent denied the 1st Respondent’s claim.

The suit proceeded to trial, at the conclusion of which, the Court below delivered the vexed judgment to the conclusive effect: