The Administrators/executors of the Estate of General Sani Abacha V. Samuel Davideke-spiff & Ors. (2000)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

NSOFOR, J.C.A. 

The respondents qua plaintiffs had by a writ of summons filed on the 30th of November, 1998 in the Port Harcourt High Court of the Rivers State of Nigeria, claimed as per paragraph 19 of the statement of claim (as amended) as follows –

“19 WHEREFORE plaintiffs claim as follows:

1. A declaration that the 1st plaintiff vested with the property known as plot 288 Diobu G.R.A. Phase II, vide the prior building lease registered as No. 78 at page 78 in volume 25 of the Lands Registry in the office at Port Harcourt is by operation of the Land Use Act, 1978 the deemed holder of any certificate of occupancy in respect of the plot 288, G.R.A., Phase II, property.
2. A declaration that the subsequent grant on 8/6/77 of a Building Lease over the same plot 288 Diobu, G.R.A. Phase II in favour of Sani Abacha (3rd defendant) as a private citizen (notwithstanding the prior grant in 1975 to the plaintiff) is unconstitutional and therefore null and void.
3. A declaration that the purported 1986 revocation of the plaintiff’s building lease No.78/78/25 by the 1st defendant is unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect.
4. An order setting aside the certificate of occupancy dated 10th March, 1987 registered in the office at Port Harcourt in favour of Major General Sani Abacha therein addressed as Chief of Defence Staff, Ministry of Defence Lagos, as the same was unconstitutionally and irregularly granted.
5. An Order for re-possession of the property known as plot 288 within Diobu G.R.A. Phase II, Port Harcourt by the plaintiff”.

Both the 1st and the 2nd defendants through their solicitor jointly entered an unconstitutional (sic) appearance on the 16th of December, 1998. The 3rd defendant by their Solicitor entered a conditional appearance on the 15th of December, 1998.

The parties each filed their pleadings in the suit. The pleadings were finally settled at the statement of claim (copied at pages 32 to 35 of the Record of Appeal), the joint statement of defence by the 1st and the 2nd defendants (copied at pages 18/19 of the record).

The 3rd defendant filed his own separate defence. The statement of defence of the 3rd defendant is at pages 19A to 19B of the Record.

In addition the plaintiffs had filed a “Reply to the Defence” to the statement of defence by the three defendants. Vide pages 28/29 of the record.

It becomes necessary to note that at the close of pleadings, but before the actual hearing in the suit, the plaintiffs by a motion on notice filed on the 30th of April, 1999 called upon the 1st and the 2nd defendants to admit the existence of certain documents and a set of facts. The quo warranto for the application, as expressed on the notice of motion was Orders 30 rule 2(1) to (5); 35 rr. 1, 2 and 3; 6(1); (2); (3) and (7) of the Rivers State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1987. The documents and the facts which the 1st and the 2nd defendants were called upon to admit were listed in and set out in Annexture 1 and, the facts therein set out were in numbered paragraphs (a) to (g) inclusive. Those documents were verified in paragraph 6 of the affidavit in support of the motion as exhibits B to B 12 and the facts in Annexture 1, verified in paragraph 7 of the supporting affidavit as paragraphs (a) – (g).

Order 30 of the Rivers State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1987 headed “Admissions” in its rule 2 sub-rule (5) provides:-

“A party who fails to give notice of non-admission in accordance with paragraph (4) in relation to any fact or document shall be deemed to have admitted that fact or the authenticity of that document unless the court otherwise orders.”

The Motion came on for hearing and it was heard. The application was granted. See pages 65 to 66 of the record. The court ordered accordingly. Those documents, exhibits B to B12 admitted, are:

“B1. Building lease dated 2/1/75 registered as No. 78 at page 78 in volume 25 of the Lands Registry in Port Harcourt granted plaintiff a 99 year lease.

B2. Certificate of occupancy dated 1/1/87 registered as No. 84 at page 84 in volume 124 of the Lands Registry granting the 3rd defendant 89 years lease.

B3. Plaintiff’s application for approved building plan filed at page 24 in the property file.