Chief Paul Aminadoki Obu & Ors V. A. Onibudo and Company Limited & Ors (2009)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

SULEIMAN GALADIMA, JCA,

The plaintiffs now as Appellants have appealed against the judgment of the High Court of Rivers State presided over by M.U. ODILI (J) as she then was, delivered on the 24th July 2003.

The plaintiffs by a writ of summons dated 21/4/1998 commenced proceedings against the Defendants (hereinafter referred to as the “Respondents”) as follows:

“1. A DECLARATION that the certificate of occupancy with reference No. RSG. 019463, Registered as No. 51 at page 51 in volume 99 of the state’s Land Registry, Port Harcourt issued by the Military Governor of Rivers state on 1st day of November, 1981 to A. ONIBUDO & COMPANY LIMITED is null and void.

2. A DECLARATION that the plaintiffs are entitled to possession of the parcel of land or premises demise (sic) by the plaintiffs to ONIBUDO & COMPANY LIMITED which Land is situate at Abuloma and particularly described in the Lease dated 30th December 1977 and Registered as No. 94 at page 94 in volume 61 of the state’s Land Registry, Port Harcourt.
3. Possession of the said premises or parcel of Land.
4. N1,000,000.00 Damages for breach of implied condition/covenant.
5. Mesne profit at the rate of N1,000,000.00 per annum from the date of service of the writ until delivery of possession.”

By an application dated 23/4/2002 the 1st Defendant sought and obtained leave to amend and did amend its statement of Defence and counter-claim, thereby introducing material facts to buttress the point that it did not assert any superior title to that of the plaintiffs. The 1st Defendant also sought for a rectification of the Certificate of Occupancy.

After a review of the evidence at the trial the learned judge refused the plaintiffs, relief for declaration that the certificate of occupancy in a nullity. She however, found in favour of the 1st Defendant on its counter-claim that the said Certificate of Occupancy is valid, subsisting and unimpeachable having regard to the facts of the case. The tenure expressed in the certificate of occupancy was reduced to bring it in line with the tenure in the earlier registered Deed of Lease plaintiff’s and the Defendant.

Aggrieved by this decision, plaintiffs appealed to this court filing originally one ground of appeal with indication to file additional grounds. On 3/5/2008 grounds of appeal numbered 2 and 3 were deemed validly filed. Consequently a total of three grounds of appeal have been presented before this court, reproduced without their particulars as follows:

“(1) Judgment is against the weight of evidence.

2. The learned trial judge erred in law when she held that the certificate of occupancy issued to the 1st Defendant is valid, subsisting and unimpeachable.
3. The learned trial judge erred in law when in her judgment she proceeded a reduction of the duration of the term of the certificate of occupancy to accord with the term of the lease granted to the 1st Defendant.

In due compliance with the Rules of this court Briefs of argument were filed by the Appellant and the Respondents. The Appellant also filed a Reply Brief to the 1st, 2nd 3rd Respondents briefs of argument on 19/11/2007 and 30/6/2008 respectively.

The Appellant in his Brief of argument dated 12/6/2004 and filed on 14/6/2004 sole issue was presented for determination of this appeal thus:

“Whether the learned trial judge was right in granting the 1st defendant declaration that the certificate of occupancy registered as No. 51 at pages 51 in volume 99 of the Land Registry, Port Harcourt is subsisting, valid and unimpeachable, injunction and a further declaration of entitlement to possession of the relevant parcel of land for the term or duration of the said certificate of occupancy.”

In the 1st Respondent’s brief of argument dated 28/5/2006 and filed on 30/5/2006 but deemed filed upon an application for extension of time, on 19/11/2007 two issues were formulated for the consideration of this appeal as follows:

“3.1. Whether the learned trial judge in her judgment had made contradictory declarations, first nullifying the certificate of occupancy and later holding the same to be valid, subsisting and unimpeachable.

3.2. whether or not the Appellants have distilled any issue from the Grounds of Appeal filed such that will sustain the argument or Appellant’s brief in this appeal.