Oloja & Ors V. Gov, Benue State & Ors (2021)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI, J.S.C. 

The Appellants herein were the plaintiffs in the trial Court while the Respondents were the defendants/counter-claimants. In paragraph 30 of their further, further amended statement of claim, the Appellants as plaintiffs at the trial Court claimed jointly and severally against the Respondents as follows:-

a. Declaration that the policy of Benue State Government of disposing its quarters to civil/public servants, on owner occupier basis, which was later on extended to cover elected officers does not exclude the plaintiffs.

b. Declaration that the plaintiffs who are actual occupiers of their respective allocated quarter, who have indicated interest in buying the houses, should be given the first option to buy houses but any other interested person who is not in actual occupation thereof.

c. Declaration that the plaintiffs who are in actual occupation of their respective houses, who have applied and paid the application fees to buy the houses ought to have been formally informed that they (sic) applications were not approved and reasons thereof before putting out the houses to other intending buyers.

d. Declaration that the purported revocation of each of the plaintiffs, tenancy/notice to quit same and subsequent allocation to others who are not in occupation is inequitable, unjust, unfair and discriminatory against the plaintiffs, unconstitutional and same should be set aside.

e. Declaration that each of the plaintiffs having been legally allocated the various government quarters, as civil servants in Benue State, which they have indicated interest in purchasing is more qualified as an occupier to be given the first option of the same on owner occupier basis.

f. Declaration that the purported revocation of each of the plaintiffs, tenancy and quit notice on same as well as the subsequent allocation of the respective quarters being occupied by each of the plaintiffs to other person is contrary to the government’s policy to assign these houses on “owner occupier” basis is null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

g. Order of the Court setting aside the purported allocation of the houses occupied by the plaintiffs.

h. Order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, by themselves, agents, servants, by and through whomsoever, from doing anything, taking any action prejudicial to the interest of the plaintiffs, trespassing on the houses and or in any way and manner tampering with the peaceful occupation by the plaintiffs of the quarters they now occupy.

i. Order of specific performance against the defendants to complete the contract of assignment the houses which the plaintiffs now occupy by issuing to the plaintiffs, receipts of purchase covering the houses and pay back balance due to the plaintiffs from the entitlement of each of the plaintiffs and where the entitlements have been paid, allow the plaintiffs effect the payment of the purchase prices of the houses.

The facts as gleaned from the record of appeal is that the Appellants herein were allocated houses owned by the Benue State Government which they were occupying as tenants and paying rent. After the Appellants retired from service but before vacating the houses, the Benue State Government evolved a policy with effect from 11th September, 2006 to sell the houses to Civil Servants in the service of the Benue State Government. The guidelines for the allocation of the houses were contained in the Benue State Executive Council (EXCO) Conclusions.

Going by the guidelines, the Appellants still in occupation of the houses were not entitled and eligible to be allocated the houses on owner-occupier basis because some of them were in the service of the Federal Government and Local Governments while the policy covered only persons in the service of Benue State Government. Furthermore, they had retired at the time the policy took effect and were also in arrears of rent/economic rent contrary to the Guidelines.

The government made invitation to her civil servants to apply for the houses to be allocated to them on owner-occupier basis wherein the 23 Appellants also applied for same at which Government considered their applications and found them in default for noncompliance with the Guidelines and rejected same prompting the government to allocate the houses to qualified persons. Consequent upon the Appellants refusal to deliver up possession of the houses for the bona fide allottees to take over, the Respondents therefore decided to issue them quit notices to vacate the houses.