Alhaji Muhtari Abdulkarim & Ors. V. Princess Vivian Ndigwe Anazodo & Anor. (2006)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

PETER ODILI, J.C.A.

The appellants as plaintiff before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory presided over by Kusherki J. claimed for the following reliefs against the Respondents being defendants in their statement of claim:-

(a) The sum of three million naira (3,000,000.00) as special damages for trespass to the plaintiffs’ land being plot No. 42 within the Maitama District and evidenced by Certificate of Occupancy No. FCT/ABU/SO.442.

(b) That the plaintiffs have title to the property and the rights on the said property remained unchanged and unaltered.

(c) An order of the honourable court that the defendant’s interference of the plaintiffs’ rights on the property is unlawful, illegal and illusory.

(d) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, her agents, servant, privies or anybody acting on her behalf or at her instance from further acts of trespass or in any way asserting acts of ownership on the said land.

FACTS:

The position as put forward by the plaintiffs/appellants is that the property is an object of assignment to the third plaintiff by the 1st plaintiff, the original holder of the said property. That upon the assignment of the property by the first plaintiff to the third plaintiff, the third plaintiff took possession, established acts of ownership and consequently leased the structure of portacabin to the second plaintiff. That while in lawful occupation, the property was trespassed into by the defendants/respondents and the said property was damaged and pulled down by the defendants. That there was no evidence of a revocation of plaintiffs’ plot before it was allocated to the first defendant.

The version proffered by the defendants/respondents as per their statement of defence is that the allocation of the plot to the plaintiff had been revoked and reallocated to the first defendant. That there was development on the property which was pulled down by the Federal Capital Development Authority (2nd defendant/respondent). That the first defendant having been allocated the properly by the second defendant, the first defendant cannot be held in contempt.

That learned trial Judge held that there was proper revocation of the allocation to the 1st plaintiff/appellant and the re-allocation to the 1st defendant/respondent was proper and that 1st defendant/respondent retains the said land.

It is against that judgment that the Appellants have appealed to this court.

The 1st respondent cross-appealed asking for a setting aside of the order of the lower court ordering the 2nd respondent to grant an alternative piece or parcel of land to the 1st appellant.

Mr. Zibiri learned counsel for the appellants filed brief of argument on 6/4/05. Also they filed a reply to respondents brief on 10/6/05 within time, and their reply to the preliminary objection are in the reply brief.

Mr. Tunyan for 1st respondent, filed 1st respondents brief on 8/6/05 and urged the court to dismiss the appeal and allow their cross-appeal.