Ntoe Andrew O. Ansa & Ors V. The Registered Trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Nigeria & Ors (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OMOKRI, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the decision of Justice Odu of the High Court of Cross River State, Calabar in suit No. C/14/82 delivered on 29/8/2000.

The plaintiffs/respondents, (hereinafter called respondents) Registered Trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Nigeria, claimed that they are owners of a piece and parcel of land situate at Otu Street, I Edem Ishie Street, Ishie Town, Calabar. Having acquired the land as aforesaid, they proceeded to erect a church manse to accommodate their Ministers and or Pastors. When the building was at wall plate level they alleged that the Central Bank of Nigeria instructed the Police to demolish the building which they did. The respondents then instituted proceedings against the Central Bank of Nigeria and the police, herein described as defendants/respondents, claiming as follows:

“(a) A (declaration that the plaintiffs are the rightful owner of a piece and parcel of land situate at Otu Street/Edem Effiom Street, Calabar and arc entitled to a statutory right of occupancy over it.

(b) A declaration that the defendants are trespassers on the plaintiffs land at Otu Street, Calabar.

(c) The sum of N 1.5m as special and general damages for trespass and unlawful destruction of the plaintiffs building under construction at Otu Street, Calabar.

Particulars of Special Damages

(i) N579, 500.00 the current market price of the materials utilized by the plaintiffs in getting the building constructed to wall plate level before it was destroyed by the act of the defendants (details of the said sum are as computed in paragraph 27 of this statement of claim.

(ii) N920, 500.00 general damages for the unlawful and wrongful act of the defendants in destroying the plaintiffs’ Manse muilding (sic) erected to wall plate level.

(d) A perpetual injuction (sic) restraining the defendants their servants, agents and privies from any further interference with the plaintiffs’ right to possession, occupation and enjoyment of the said parcel of land on which the demolished property stands.”

While the case was still pending at the court below, the interested parties/appellants (hereinafter called appellants) filed an application on 11/2/99 praying that they be joined as defendants and counter-claimants in the suit. The lower court refused the application for joinder in its ruling delivered on the 9/8/2000.

Dissatisfied with the ruling of the lower court the appellants appealed to this court on 5 grounds on 15/8/2000. From the 5 grounds the appellants in their appellants’ brief dated 1/3/2002 and filed on 6/3/02 distilled two issues for determination. The two issues for determination are:

“(1) Whether the learned trial Judge was judicial and judicious in his ruling refusing to join the appellants either as defendants/counter-claimants or as defendant simpliciter.

(2) Whether the trial high court in view of the claim in this F matter can exercise jurisdiction over the defendants/respondents.”