Alhaji Adamu Hamidu & Anor V. Sahar Ventures Ltd. (2003)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

AMIRU SANUSI, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the judgment of Bauchi State High Court of Justice, dated 14th May, 1997, delivered by J. C. Ozoh, J. The respondent in this appeal was the plaintiff in the court below, while the two appellants herein were the defendants thereat. By a writ of summons dated 23/9/1994, filed by the plaintiff at the lower court in suit No. BA/257/94, the plaintiff claimed a declaratory and injunctive reliefs and the sums of fifty thousand naira (N50,000.00) and thirty-three thousand, four hundred naira (N33,400.00) as general and special damages respectively.

After filing the writ, the court below became engaged in taking some interlocutory applications, until 28/11/94, when it ordered the parties to file their pleadings. Pleadings were thereafter filed and exchanged. The plaintiff filed its statement of claim dated 2nd of December, 1994, whereas the defendants filed their copious joint statement of defence dated 12th December, 1994. It is however, instructive to note that in the statement of claim which obviously supercedes the writ (See case of A.C.B. Ltd. v. Eagle Super Park (Nigeria) Ltd. (1995) 2 NWLR (Pt. 379) 590 SC) the plaintiff maintained its declaratory and injunctive reliefs contained in its writ but enhanced or increased the amounts claimed as general and special damages and also included claim of breach of contract not contained in its writ of summons.

The claims made in the statement of claim filed by the plaintiff/respondents on which the suit was fought by the parties are reproduced underneath. They are:
“(a) A declaration that the revocation of the lease/tenancy agreement between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant by the 1st defendant is wrongful, illegal, null and void.
(b) An injunction restraining the defendants either by themselves, their agents, servants and privies from further discharging petroleum products or trespassing into the petrol filling station at Kano Road, Ningi, until proper termination of the lease/tenancy agreement.
(c) The sum of N100,000.00 being general damages for costs of trespass committed by the defendants on the 20/9/94 and 26/9/94 by forcefully entering and discharging diesel and petrol at the petrol filling station situates at Kano Road, Ningi, Bauchi State.
(d) The sum of N50,000.00 being damages for breach of contract by the defendant.
(e) Special damages for loss of use of the petrol filling station at Kano Road Ningi, occasioned by the defendants and assessed at N1,140,480.00 commencing from July, 1994 to 31st March, 1995, when the lease/tenancy agreement would terminate by effusion of time.”

The facts that gave rise to this appeal are summarised as below. The plaintiff/respondent company was engaged in marketing of petroleum products even though it was neither an independent nor major marketer and had no petrol filling station of its own. It approached the first defendant/appellant who owned a filling station along Kano Road in Ningi, Bauchi State covered by a Certificate of Occupancy No. BA/7847 issued to him by Bauchi State Government for a 40 year term beginning on 13/12/1982. By a deed of sub-lease dated 3/10/1992, the filling station was leased to the plaintiff by the 1st defendant/appellant for a term of two years at an annual rent of N25,000.00 per annum to take effect from 1/1/1993 and N50,000.00 rentage was paid to the defendant by the plaintiff for the two years.

As it has been one of the regulations of the NNPC that only an independent or major marketer that can license a petrol filling station and since it was neither major nor independent marketer, the plaintiff/respondent contracted with the 2nd defendant/appellant an independent marketer to license the petrol filling station under a written agreement. The latter processed and acquired a license for the filling station dated 29/1/1993 and the parties after obtaining NNPC’s permission commenced business in earnest. On 31/1/94 a “Proprietary agreement” was entered into between the plaintiff/respondent and 2nd defendant/appellant to regulate their business relationship.

Before the expiry of the first term of the tenancy agreement, the 1st defendant issued 2 weeks notice of revocation of the lease and later terminated the proprietary agreement. Thereafter, the plaintiff approached the 2nd defendant/ appellant to release to it the original license and a release letter of the filling station so as to enable it relicense the station with another independent marketer, but the 2nd defendant refused and instead the 2nd defendant continued using the license and on seeing that the plaintiff/respondent wrote the NNPC Depot Chief to stop the 2nd defendant from lifting petroleum products since he had no filling station.

On 20th & 26th September, 1994 the defendants/appellants lifted petroleum products and discharged them in the filling station and when the plaintiff/respondent saw the trucks arrive they tried to stop them from discharging the products by force but the police were alerted and petrol was however sold to the public. Aggrieved with the situation, the plaintiff filed ex parte motion at the lower court and obtained an order of injunction restraining the defendants/appellants from entering the premises and discharging any petroleum products.

The said petrol filling station was closed on the order of the court as from 27/9/94 till the 18/1/1995 when this court upon an appeal filed against the ex parte order vacated the said order of injunction granted by the lower court. It is worthy of note that afterwards an attempt was made by the parties to settle their dispute after, of course, the second defendant and the plaintiff reconciled their account. The plaintiff/respondent demanded that the 2nd defendant should give it the original license and the release letter, but the latter refused to give such documents to the plaintiff/respondent because according to it the license is in its name as the licensee of the station because according to it the plaintiff/respondent no longer had a filling station upon which to operate and that giving the release letter would amount to encouraging it to continue diverting petroleum products.

Aggrieved by the action of the defendant, the plaintiff sued the two defendants at the lower court.

Pleadings were filed and exchanged by parties after which hearing commenced. The plaintiff called only one witness and closed it case. The defendant who jointly conducted their defense called three witnesses. In the end, the lower court found and entered judgment in favour of the plaintiff/respondent against the two defendants. It inter alia, awarded N1,140,480.00 special damages for loss of use of the said filling station between July, 1994 and 31/3/95, when the tenancy agreement was deemed to have expired.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the lower court, the two appellants appealed to this court. They filed seven grounds of appeal as contained in their notice and grounds of appeal which are set out below without their particulars. The grounds of appeal read thus:

Ground One
The learned trial Judge erred in law and came to a wrong interpretation of the law when he regarded “The sublease agreement” exhibit’ A’ between the 1st defendant and the plaintiff as a tenancy agreement and wrongly held that exhibit ‘A’ was not a registrable reasonable instrument under sections 6 and 8(1) of the Land Registration Law of Northern Nigeria as applicable to Bauchi State, Cap. 58, Laws of Northern Nigeria.

The learned trial Judge also ignored the effect of sections 22 and 26 of the Land Use Act of 1978, with regard to exhibit ‘A’.