Engineering Enterprise Of Niger Contractor Co.of Nigeria V. The Attorney-general Of Kaduna State (1987)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

BELLO, C.J.N. 

The material facts and the circumstances for the determination of this appeal are simple and undisputed. In 1971, the Military Governor of Kaduna State granted to the Plaintiff the right of occupancy under the Certificate of Occupancy No.14438 for a piece of land situated in Kaduna South for a period of 99 years.

Between 1976 and 1978 the U.T.C., acting in accordance with an arrangement between it and the Plaintiff, developed the land to the tune of well over N700,000. By the revocation order of 13th February 1979, the Military Administrator of Kaduna State revoked the grant on the purported ground that the Plaintiff had failed to comply with the conditions of the grant.

Consequently, the Plaintiff instituted a suit in the High Court of Kaduna State. The writ reads:

“The Plaintiffs claim against the defendant is for DECLARATION that the purported revocation of the plaintiff’s right of occupancy No N.C. 14438 over a piece of land at No 5 Kachia Road, Kaduna South KCT which has been developed with well over N700,000 with consent of the officials of the State Ministry of Lands and Surveys is null and void on the grounds that the said Government officials as servants and or agents of the Government are guilty of fraud and their fraud vitiates the purported revocation of the said right of occupancy No. NC. 14438 by the Military Administrator on 13th day of February 1979.”

After having heard the evidence adduced by the parties, Abdullahi J., as he was then, delivered judgment on 26th October 1979 dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim. The Plaintiff was not satisfied with the decision of the High Court and so he appealed to the Court of Appeal on the following grounds:

“(1). The decision of the learned Judge is against the weight of evidence.

(2) The learned trial Judge misdirected himself in law and in fact by not holden that fraud vitiated the revocation order.

PARTICULARS OF MISDIRECTION/ERROR

(a) There was clear evidence that it was the Permanent Secretary who advised the Plaintiff and the U.T.C. as to when to submit the application for statutory consent who turned round to use the non receipt of the consent to recommend the revocation of the right of occupancy.

(b) Exhibits 7C and 8 are clear.

(c) The best evidence rule applies.

3. The learned trial Judge misdirected himself both in law and in fact by holding that the plaintiff/appellant told a lie as to the whereabout of the original Certificate of Occupancy.

PARTICULARS OF MISDIRECTION

(a) Parties are bound by their pleadings