Nigeria Railway Corporation & Ors V. Mathew Akinbode & Ors (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI, J.C.A.

On 21st July, 1997, Jimoh .J., while sitting at the High Court of Justice, Ibadan, handed out his ruling in which he dismissed the 1st Appellant/Applicant’s motion which related, in the main, to incompetence of the action for non service of a statutory pre-action notice. The learned trial judge, without any iota of evidence led before him on the basically declaratory reliefs claimed by the respondents, as plaintiffs, concluded that the land of the plaintiffs which is no more required for public purpose for which it was originally required automatically reverts to them and their right or interest in the land resurrects. He also found that the 1st Appellant had no power whatsoever under the law to transfer, lease or sell the property in dispute to the 2nd and 3rd defendants, inter alia.

The 1st appellant naturally felt unhappy with the stance posed by the learned trial judge and filed its appeal dated 7th August, 1997 on the 8th of August 1997.

The Notice of Appeal was accompanied by eight (8) grounds of appeal.

The 2nd and 3rd appellants equally felt irked by the decision of the learned trial judge and filed their joint Notice of Appeal dated 21st August, 1997 on the same date. The said Notice of Appeal was accompanied by three (3) grounds of appeal.

For a clear focus and appraisal, it is apt to depict what really transpired at the lower court. As plaintiffs thereat, the respondents herein claimed against the defendants/appellants as follows:

“1. Declaration that the 1st defendant is not entitled to sell to the 2nd defendant or any person any portion out of the large tract of land situate lying and being at or near Bodija Railway Station, Ibadan which the plaintiffs are entitled to occupy under the native law and custom and under the Land Use Act.

2. Declaration that the purported sale to the 2nd defendant or any person out of the said large tract of land is null and void and of no legal effect whatsoever.
3. Declaration that the 1st defendant is not entitled to obtain rents from the members of the family of the plaintiffs or any other person whatsoever in respect of the permanent structures which had already been erected on the said land before and after the acquisition or purported acquisition by the 1st defendant of the said area in dispute.
4. Re-possession of the excess (inclusive of the land occupied by the 2nd defendant) of 40 feet on both sides of the rail lines.”

Pleadings were filed by both sides and issues were joined. In paragraph 18 of the statement of defence, the 1st defendant/appellant ostensibly raised the point that the action was not properly before the trial court in accordance with the Nigerian Railway Corporation Act.

The 1st defendant/appellant thereafter filed an application dated 19th April, 1996 on the same date for orders:

“1. Setting down for hearing and disposal the following points of law raised in the pleadings of the plaintiffs and 1st defendant, i.e.

(a) Whether the plaintiffs/respondents’ action in (sic) is incompetent and invalid for noncompliance with s.83(2) of the Nigerian Railway Corporation Act CAP. 139 of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria as regards condition precedent for commencing a suit against the 1st defendant/applicant.

(b) Whether having regard to the provisions of s. 40 of the Nigerian Railway Corporation Act, the plaintiffs/respondents have any legal right or reversionary interest in the land in dispute that ought to be protected by the court.

(c) Whether, by virtue of s.17(2)(f) of the Nigerian Railway Corporation Act, the 1st defendant has power to sell, let or otherwise dispose of the land in dispute to the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants.

(d) Whether in view of s.49 of the Land Use Act, lands owned by the 1Ist defendant Corporation,