Alhaji Yaro Gangariya & Anor V. The Registered Trustees of Methodist Church of Nigeria (1992)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OGWUEGBU J.C.A. 

This is an appeal against the decision of an Ife High Court holden at Ile-Ife dated 14/6/88. The plaintiff sued the defendant in a representative capacity. The claim as set out in paragraph 43 of the amended statement of claim reads:-

“(a) Declaration that the plaintiff’s entitled to statutory right of occupancy to the land in dispute which forms part of the land granted to it in 1953 which is particularly shown and delineated on the plaintiffs’ survey plan No.PFY.923 of 13/11/87 verged blue.

(b) N 10,000.00 general damages for trespass committed on the land in dispute by unlawfully entering the land between 1986-1987 without the consent and authority of the plaintiff and started building operation on the land. The land is at all material time in possession of the plaintiff.

(c) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants and privies from further entering the land in dispute or tampering with the plaintiffs’ survey pillars on the plaintiff’s land on the land in dispute.

The action was tried on the pleadings filed and exchanged by the patties. In a reserved judgment, the learned trial Judge granted all the three reliefs claimed by the plaintiff. As against N10, 000.00 general damages claimed by the plaintiff, N500.00 (Five hundred naira) was awarded.

The defendants were not satisfied with the decision and appealed to this court. The notice of appeal filed on 27/6/88 contained five grounds of appeal. This court granted leave to amend the notice of appeal on 28/11/90. The amended notice of appeal contains ten grounds of appeal which without their particulars read as follows:-

“1. The learned trial Judge erred in law and misdirected himself on the facts when he held that the land was granted to the plaintiff which has no locus standi to institute the action thereby arriving at a wrong conclusion.

2. The learned trial Judge was in serious error of law when he held:

“the resultant effect is that Ooni Aderemi granted and conveyed the land to Rev. D. B. Esan on trust (italics mine) for Methodist Church, Ife a juristic person.”

When one considers the effect of paragraphs 17 and 18 of the amended statement of claim.

3. Having failed to assess and evaluate adequately the evidence, relating to the registration under the Land (Perpetual Succession) Ac: Cap.98 of the Laws of the Federation and proof thereto the learned trial Judge erred in law and thereby erroneously held/concluded that:

“Going further down the document, Exhibit P1, the recitals described The Registered Number of the Trustees as WL 3421/3. In other words the Trustee was registered. The quarrel of Mr. Azeez was that the

Trustee was not registered, the certificate was not produced, the learned counsel has forgotten that this (Exhibit PI) was registered in 1964. This is about 23 years old when this action was taken in 1987 …

4. The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that the plaintiff was entitled to the first relief claimed when there was no Plan No. PFY 923 of 13th November, 1987 or any reply to the Statement of Defence in law before the court.
5. The learned trial Judge erred in law by failing to give adequate consideration to the Defence of the Appellants and thereby came to a wrong conclusion.
6. The learned trial Judge erred in law by failing to dismiss the Respondents’ case and hold that there was no grant of the land in dispute to the respondents as the purported grant to the respondent was ineffective null and void by reason of their grantor having no power to make the grant.
7. The learned trial Judge erred and misdirected himself on facts when he failed to dismiss the respondent’s claim when on the pleadings and evidence led; it was shown clearly that the land in dispute was not included in the land purportedly granted to the Respondent by Ooni Aderemi.
8. The learned trial Judge erred in law when he allowed the respondent’s claim in trespass when the respondent was never in possession of the land.
9. The learned trial Judge erred in law by granting an order of injunction against the appellant in favour of the Respondent when the conditions precedent to making of such order was absent.
10. The learned trial Judge erred in law by holding that the appellants were licensees on the land they occupied when that was not the case of the respondent and no such issue was raised by the parties before the court.”

I will hereinafter refer the defendants as the appellants and the plaintiff as the respondent.

The appellants filed their amended brief of argument on 14/12/90 with the leave of this court. The respondent also filed its amended brief of argument on 29/1/91.