Josiah Ayodele Adatayo & 2 Ors V Kunle Ademola (2010)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

MOHAMMED, J.S.C.

The Appellants in this appeal were the Plaintiffs at the Federal High Court Lagos where they, by a Writ of Summons and statement of claim, filed their action against the Respondents herein who were the Defendants and claimed against them in paragraph 13 of the statement of claim as follows –

“(a.) A declaration that they are the persons entitled to be issued with certificate of occupancy in respect of the various parcels of land being occupied by them and claimed by the first Defendant at Yakoyo near Ojodu village.

(b.) A declaration that the judgment in suit No. FHC/L/CS/820/95 is null and void as neither the Plaintiffs nor the second and third Defendants were served with Court processes in the suit.

(c.) An injunction restraining the Defendants, their servants, agents privies and otherwise howsoever from interfering with the Plaintiffs possession of the land being occupied by them at Yakoyo near Ojodu village.”

However, before the action came up for hearing, the 1st Respondent who was the 1st Defendant at the trial Court filed a motion on Notice urging the Court to dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction to entertain the same. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents, were Respondents to the motion which was heard by the trial Court. In its Ruling delivered on 11th July, 2001, the trial Court held that it has jurisdiction to entertain the Plaintiffs’ action by virtue of the provisions of Section 251(1)(r) of the 1999 Constitution. The 1st Respondent who was not happy with the Ruling of the trial Court decided to appeal against it to the Court of Appeal Lagos Division where the only issue raised for the determination of the appeal was –

‘Whether by virtue of the provisions of Section 251(1)(r) of the 1999 Constitution, the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to entertain an action for a declaration of title to the land.’

After hearing the appeal, the Court of Appeal in resolving the single issue of jurisdiction that was placed before it for determination in its judgment delivered on 30th June, 2004 came to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 251(1)(r) of the 1999 Constitution by virtue of which the trial Court held that it has the required jurisdiction to entertain the Plaintiffs/Appellants’ action, does not confer such jurisdiction on the trial Court and consequently struck-out the action in allowing the appeal. The Plaintiffs who were not happy with that decision are now on appeal to this Court.

In the brief of argument filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs/Appellants by their learned Senior Counsel to challenge the decision of the Court of Appeal that the trial Federal High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the action of the Appellants for declaration of title to various plots of land, the following five issues were identified for the determination of the appeal –

“(1.) Whether the Federal High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain land matters in all circumstances.

(2.) Whether it is the reliefs endorsed on the statement of claim that determines the jurisdiction of the Court.

(3.) Whether or not the Appellants’ claim is one properly within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court either by Section (sic) (1)(r) and (s) of the 1999 Constitution or even by the nature of the issue raised in the statement of claim.

(4.) Whether the Appellants were obliged to file a notice of intention to affirm the Ruling of Abutu J. on other grounds or to obtain leave to appeal before raising the issue.

(5.) Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in striking out the suit in view of Section 22 of the Federal High Court Act.”