Dr Davidson Oguocha V. Prof Michael Ayodele Ajomo (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A

This is an appeal from the Judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, in suit No.FCT/HC/CV/678/02-PROF MICHAEL AYODELE AJOMO AND DR DAVIDSON OGUOCHA delivered on the 3rd day of January 2007.

Briefly the facts of the case are that Respondent as plaintiff at the lower Court claimed as follows:-

(a) Possession of the premises

(b) An injunction restraining the Defendant whether by himself, his servants, agents, privies or otherwise howsoever from further trespassing on the premises.

The premises in question is the land known as Plot 677, Wuye District, Cadastral Zone B3, Federal Capital Territory, Abuja which was allocated to the Respondent by the Federal Capital Development Authority. The Respondent acquired a right of Occupancy over the land which was evidenced by a Certificate of Occupancy No: FCT/ABU/ED/2274 of 10th February 1999 registered as No:FC78 Page 78 in Volume 92 of the Land Administration, Land Registry Office, Abuja.

The Respondent claimed that the Appellant trespassed into the said plot of land without licence or consent from him. He also claimed that he never sold the plot of land to the Defendant nor did he authorize any person to deal with the land on his behalf.

The Appellant, who was the Defendant at the lower Court, did not deny the legal interest of the Plaintiff but stated that the Respondent through his agents sold the property to him.

At the conclusion of trial, Judgment was given in favour of the Respondent and the Court held that the Appellant has no legal nor legitimate interest in the land and as such the Appellant should deliver possession of the said land, and an order of perpetual injunction restraining the Appellant, his agents, privies, assigns and successors from the said piece of land was made.

The Appellant dissatisfied with the said Judgment now appealed to this Court.

The Learned Counsel for the Appellant formulated two issues for determination in the Appellant’s brief of argument as follows:-

“(1) Whether the Learned trial Judge failed in his duty when he relied on Exhibit “P3″ which is Court process in another proceeding in entering Judgment for the Respondent.

(Grounds 4, 5, and 6)

(2) Whether the Respondent had prior knowledge of any kind of the presence of the Appellant on the land and his activities of carrying on the construction of the said plot to enable Appellant evoke the defence of laches and acquiescence (Grounds 1, 2 and 3).”