Ayatu Abu V. Abdullahi E. Kuyabana & Anor (2000)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ODUYEMI, J.C.A.

By a writ of summons issued out of the Abuja Judicial Division of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (herein referred to as the “lower court”) on 16th June, 1999, the plaintiff Ayatu Abu by his Attorney, Shuaibu Abu instituted an action against (1) Abdullahi Kuyabana and (2) Mike Ozioko as 1st and 2nd defendants respectively. The writ of summons is endorsed with the plaintiffs claim thus:-

“1. A declaration that the plaintiff is the bonafide owner of the Land known as Plot 884 later conveyed and known as Plot 885 Maburshi District in Abuja Federal Capital Territory.

2. A declaration that the transfer of the land known as Plot 884 later known as Plot 885 in Maburshi District of the Federal Capital Territory by the 1st defendant to the 2nd defendant or any other person is null, void and amounts to fraud as the 1st defendant had transferred the same to the plaintiff first in time.
3. An order of injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants and privies from building, constructing or doing anything on the said land.
4. An order directing the defendants their agents, servants and privies to handover the Statutory Right of Occupancy or any other documents relating to the land known as Plot 884 later known as

Plot 885 Maburshi District in the Federal Capital Territory to the plaintiff.”

The two defendants duly entered their respective appearances.

However, simultaneously with the issue of the writ of summons, the plaintiff sought ex-parte for an interim order seeking inter alia the following reliefs:-

(i) interim injunction restraining the defendants agents, and assigns from carrying out any building whatsoever on the land in dispute;

(ii) an order directing the defendants to deposit into the custody of the lower court the Certificate of Occupancy, Power of Attorney or any other documents of title of the land in dispute, pending determination of the motion on notice.

The court heard the application ex-parte on 17th June, 1999. It granted prayer 1 in its considered ruling on that day but declined to give a ruling until the defendants have had an opportunity of having their say on the motion on notice.

However, in the course of the hearing of the motion on notice, the defendants by a motion filed in the lower court on 16th July, 1999 prayed the court for an order striking out the entire suit by the plaintiff for want of jurisdiction on the grounds that:-

“(a) Non-compliance with provisions of Sheriffs & Civil Process Act, Cap. 407, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.

(b) Lack of locus standi on the part of the plaintiff/applicant’s Attorney to institute the suit.”

As this application was a challenge to the jurisdiction of the lower court it decided to suspend hearing on the application for interim injunction and to hear and determine the motion on jurisdiction.

Arguments were duly heard. In a considered ruling given on 30th July, 1999 the lower court found in favour of the defendants on the issue of the locus standi of the plaintiffs Attorney but not on the issue of non-compliance with the provisions of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, Cap. 407, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.