Mr. Ogbonnaya Odoemelam & Mr. I.C. Amadiume & Anor (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

NGWUTA, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the ruling delivered in suit No. FHC/CA/CS/25/2003 by Ajakaiye, J. of the Federal High Court. Calabar division on 7th Oct., 2004.

The appellant operated a bar/shop between the “awaiting and departure lounges” at the Margaret Ekpo international Airport, Calabar as a tenant of the respondents. The respondents initiated the process of ejecting the appellant and terminating the tenancy with the letter No FAAN/500/CAL/Vol. 12 of 16/9/02 addressed by the respondents to the appellant. It appears the process was concluded in Feb. 2003 at the refusal of the respondents to allocate another shop/Bar to the appellant.

Aggrieved by the termination of his tenancy, the appellant issued a writ of summons on 17/3/03 on which were endorsed the following claims jointly and severally against the respondents (then defendants).

“1. An order declaring that the defendants’ sudden termination of the plaintiff’s tenancy of the bamboo bar/shop situate in between the awaiting and departure lounges of the Margaret Ekpo International (sic) Calabar and his ejection there from by the defendants is illegal, null and void and of no effect.

2. An order compelling the defendants to forthwith return/deliver all the plaintiffs properties caned away from the plaintiff’s Bamboo bar/shop in the Margaret Ekpo International Airport, Calabar to the plaintiff or in the alternative to pay the plaintiff the sum of N900.650.00 being the total value of the plaintiff’s properties.
3. The sum of seven million naira (N7,000,000.00) only for the defendants’ illegal and forceful ejection of the plaintiff from the bamboo bar/shop situate in between the awaiting and departure lounges of the Margaret Ekpo International Airport. Calabar.
4. General damages assessed at seven million, ninety nine thousand, three hundred and fifty naira (N7,099,350.00 only.”

Upon service on them of the statement of claim the respondents who had earlier entered a conditional appearance filed a notice of preliminary objection to the suit that:

i. The Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

ii. The plaintiff/respondent’s claim is statute-barred.

iii. The plaintiff/respondent’s action is incompetent.

Grounds of Objection:

i. The plaintiff’s/respondent’s case is an action pertaining to the recovery of premises. Section 251 of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 does not confer jurisdiction over recovery of premises or tenancy matters to the Federal High Court.

2. The plaintiff’s/respondent’s claim is statute-barred pursuant to section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act Cap 379 Laws of the Federation 1990.
3. The plaintiff/respondent has not complied with the mandatory provision of sections 20(2) and 27 of the Federal Airport Authority of Nigeria Act No.9 of 1996 before instituting this suit.”

The learned trial Judge took the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and in a considered ruling over-ruled the preliminary objection on the first two grounds. However, his lordship upheld the preliminary objection on the 3rd ground, holding that

“since the condition precedent to instituting this suit, as to notice has not been fulfilled, I hold that the suit is not competent and I am unable to assume jurisdiction in respect of it. The suit is on that basis struck out.”

Aggrieved by the ruling, the appellant appealed on the lone ground that