Alhaji Umaru Malittafi V. Salisu Dahiru Modomawa & Ors (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

TUNDE OYEBANJI AWOTOYE, JCA

This is the judgment in respect of the appeal filed by the appellant against the decision of High Court of Zamfara State Gusau delivered on 10/2/2014 in Suit No ZMS/GS/SS/2/204.

2 By Paragraph 26 of their further amended statement of claim, the plaintiff claimed as follows: ?Where the plaintiffs pray:-
a) An order of this Court declaring the plaintiff as the rightful owner of the land.
b) An order setting aside the revocation order, and declaring same as unconstitutional.
c) An order ejecting the defendant from the land.
d) An order directing the defendants to evacuate all blocks, bricks, sand, (sic) gravels deposited and or any (sic) braiding on the aforesaid land and their vehicles displayed for sale on the said land.
e) An order of perpetual injunction retraining the defendants from further act of trespass on the aforesaid land.?

The plaintiff?s claim was in respect of that parcel of land lying and being at opposite Juma?at Mosque at Block 1 flat 1 & 2 Zaria Road Gusau Zamfara State.

?Parties

1

filed and exchanged pleadings, after hearing the parties, the learned trial Judge gave judgment dismissing the plaintiff?s claim in the following terms:
?On the whole, this case lacks merit, the plaintiff is not the entitled to any of the reliefs claimed and is accordingly dismissed. A cost of twenty thousand Naira only (N20,000) is hereby awarded against the plaintiff in favour of the Defendant. ”

Miffed by the decision of the lower Court, the appellant filed a notice of appeal challenging the decision on 5 grounds. The 5 grounds of appeal (shorn of the particulars) read as follows
?Ground one
The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that a sale of land conducted without Governor?s consent is still null and void without due regard to the Supreme Court decision in Aderemi?s case.
Ground two
The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that the plaintiff appellant has no locus standi to file the action.
Ground three
The learned trial Judge erred in law when he placed reliance on Exhibit D, the minutes of meeting of the presidential implementation committee in uploading the

2

revocation.
Ground four
The learned trial Judge erred in law when he upheld the revocation of the plaintiff offers without due regard to the content of Section 28 of Land Use Act.
Ground five
The judgment is unreasonable unwarranted and cannot be supported by the weight of evidence.?

The record of appeal was deemed transmitted to this Court on 5/5/2015 after which parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument.
The appellant?s brief of argument was prepared by Abdulrahman K. Adeyi and deemed filed on 13/10/2015. The Respondent?s amended brief of argument was deemed filed on 2/3/2016.
The appellant filed a reply brief on 18/4/2016.

Appellant?s counsel formulated 3 issues for determination in this appeal, they are
1. Whether the plaintiff does not have the locus standi to institute this suit, having established that he purchased the property from PW1 and PW5. (this issue is distilled from grounds 1 & 2 of the notice of appeal)
2. Whether there is valid revocation of PW1 and PW5, interest on the landed properties. (this issue is distilled from ground 4 of the notice of appeal)
3. If issue

3

2 is answered in the affirmative, whether the subsequent reallocation to the defendants for private purposes does not invalidate the revocation of the appellant right to the property. (This is distilled from ground 3 of the appeal).?