Alhaji Tijani Abdullahi Ahmed v. Mr. J. A. Adedokun (2023)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, JCA (Delivering the leading judgment)

The disputed land in this action is situate at and known as Plot 123, Kubwa Commercial Layout in the Bwari Area Council of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. The parties trace their presence on the disputed land to a common vendor, one Gumuzu (Nigeria) Limited.

The parties were engaged in contestation as to who was entitled to the land. However, it was the appellant that blinked first. He instituted proceedings before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja in suit No. FCT/HC/CV/198/ 2014: Alhaji Tijani Abdullahi Ahmed v. Mr. J. A. Adedokun (Carrying on Business in the Name and Style J. A. Adedokun Enterprises). The appellant claimed the following reliefs:

a. Declaration that Gumuzu (Nig) Ltd who was in possession of the land by virtue of the Bwari Area Council Zonal Planning Department File BZTP/LA/2003/MISC 2310 of Gumuzu (Nig) Ltd whom Gumuzu (Nig) Ltd derived possession of the land and subsequently put the Plaintiff in possession of the land, the plaintiff is the rightful person in possession of the land trespass by the defendant.

b. Declaration that by the comparison of Abuja Municipal Area Council of the Conveyance Provisional Approval found in Gumuzu (Nig.) Ltd. Policy file i.e. BZTP/LA/2003/MISC 2310 kept in Bwari Area Council, Abuja, the plaintiff Conveyance of Provisional Approval is the same discovered in File No: BZTP/LA/2003/MISC 2310 while that of the defendant is not found, therefore plaintiff is deemed to be the rightful person in possession of the land trespass by the defendant.

c. Declaration that the act of the defendant in tampering with the land in possession of the plaintiff amount to trespass.

d. Declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to enjoy exclusive possession of the Land Plot 123 measuring about 2500 sq.m. at Kubwa Commercial Layout, Bwari Area Council, F.C.T. Abuja trespass by the defendant.

e. An order of this honourable court for an injunction restraining the defendant either by himself, privies, executors, administrators, agents, successors and assigns from further trespass into the said Land.

f. An order for payment of N300,000,000.00 (Three hundred million naira) only general damages for trespass into the land.

Pleadings were filed and exchanged, and issues having been joined on the pleadings, the matter was subjected to a full-blown plenary trial at which testimonial and documentary evidence was adduced by the parties. In its decision, the lower court held that the appellant did not prove his claim and dismissed his case in its entirety. Peeved by the decision of the lower court, the appellant appealed against the same by notice of appeal filed on 18th December, 2017. The judgment of the lower court which was delivered on 16th November, 2017 is at pages 143 – 166 of the records of appeal, while the notice of appeal is at pages 167 – 172 of the records of appeal.

In prosecution of the appeal, the records of appeal was compiled and transmitted, and briefs of argument were filed and exchanged, which briefs learned counsel adopted and relied upon at the hearing of the appeal. In the appellants brief which was filed on 2nd August, 2018, but deemed as properly filed on 3rd March, 2022, the following issues were framed for determination:

1. Whether the lower court was right when it did not consider exhibit 1 among the plaintiff/appellant and defendant/ respondent who has equitable title to the land in dispute to be entitled to possession?
2. Whether the trial was not occasioned a miscarriage of justice?
3. Whether the judgment of the lower court is not against the weight of evidence?
4. Whether the lower court was right by dismissing the entire claims of the plaintiff/appellant without making proper finding of fact to justify the conclusion it reached in dismissing the claim? Whether the lower court was right by dismissing the entire claims of the plaintiff/appellant without making proper finding of fact to justify the conclusion it reached in dismissing the claim?
5. Whether the lower court was ever prayed to be awarded title to the land in dispute?
6. Was the lower court right when it failed to determine between the plaintiff and defendant that Gumuzu Nig. Ltd put in possession of the land in dispute?

The respondent filed his brief of argument on 23rd March, 2022, and he adopted the issues distilled for determination by the appellant.

The issues formulated by the appellant are intertwined and interwoven; indeed, the appellants submissions on the respective issues are repetitive given the fact of the interconnectivity of the issues. This being so, it seems to me that a sole distensible issue, which will be cumulative with the issues formulated by the parties and not as alternative to them. See Sanusi v. Amoyegun (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt. 237) 550 – 551 and Neka B.B.B. Manufacturing Ltd. v. ACB (2004) 17 NSCQR 240 at 250 – 251, will suffice for the determination of this appeal. The issue I consider apt and based on which I will presently review the submissions of learned counsel is:

Whether on the preponderance of evidence and balance of probability, the lower court rightly held that the appellant did not prove his case.