Amitech Interglobal Engineering Limited v. Efab Properties Limited & Ors (2024)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

OKON EFRETI ABANG, JCA (Delivering the leading judgment)

This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, coram Hon. Justice Folasade Ojo, delivered on the 8th June, 2017, wherein the trial court dismissed appellant’s suit, that is the plaintiff at the trial court.

The 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents were the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd defendants respectively.

Being dissatisfied with the judgment, the appellant appealed to this court. The notice of appeal that was filed on 10th October, 2017 is at pages 259 – 272 of the record.

The appellant as plaintiff instituted this suit against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents as the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants and claimed as follows:

1. A declaration that the plaintiff is the bona fide allottee and owner of the area of land known as and situate at Plot 17 (now 156) Lokogoma District Cadastral Zone C09 Abuja with file No MISC 83250 measuring approximately 54018.92m2.
2. A declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to exclusive possession and use of the said plot 17 now (156) Lokogoma District Cadastral Zone C09 Abuja with file No MISC 83250 measuring approximately 54018.92m2.
3. A declaration that the defendants’ entry and occupation of the said plot of land is unlawful and amount to act of trespass.
4. An order of mandatory injunction compelling the 1st defendant, its agents, privies, officers, assigns, successors-in-title any other person claiming through her from further entry and encroaching into the land.
5. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 2nd and 3rd defendants, its agents, privies, officers, any other person claiming through them from dealing with any other person with respect to the plot of land other than the plaintiff.
6. An order of mandatory injunction compelling the 2nd and 3rd defendants, its agents, privies, and officers to issue building/development approval to the plaintiff for the building of its mass housing project.
7. The sum of twenty million naira as damages.
8. The sum of one million naira as cost.

Or

Alternatively:

An order of the court compelling the defendants jointly and severally to pay the plaintiff the sum of two billion naira as compensatory and exemplary damages.

At the close of pleadings, the matter proceeded to hearing. The appellant called one witness and tendered various documents which were admitted in evidence and accordingly marked as exhibits. The 1st respondent, the 2nd and 3rd respondents called one witness each and tendered various documents in evidence. The trial court in a reserved judgment delivered on 8th June, 2017, dismissed the appellant’s claim. See pages 231 to 258 of the record. The appellant was dissatisfied with the said judgment and in exercise of its constitutional right of appeal filed appeal to this court. Record was compiled and transmitted. In accordance with the rules of this court, parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument. The appellant in its brief of argument filed on 7th July, 2021 formulated 7 issues for determination.

The issues are as follows:

1. Whether the trial court was right to have allowed the defendants’ respective purported statement of defence annexed as exhibit to a motion on notice when same was not separately filed and appropriate fees paid.
2. Whether the trial court was right to have refused to strike out the statement of defence of the defendants on the ground that the application for same was not made via motion on notice.
3. Whether the trial court was right to have refused to shift the evidential burden of proving the existence or otherwise of the signed development lease agreement between the 2nd and 3rd respondents and the appellant on the appellant.
4. Whether the doctrine of estoppel can avail the appellant against the 2nd and 3rd respondents with respect to denying the appellant’s position as developer.
5. Whether the trial court was right to have disregarded the material contradictions in the defence of the 2nd and 3rd respondents to the case and claim of the appellant.
6. Whether the trial court was right when it concluded that the plaintiff has failed to prove that it executed a development lease agreement with the 2nd and 3rd defendants in respect of the subject matter of this suit as required by the letter of offer exhibit 3, failed to prove that it delivered a signed copy of the development lease agreement to the 2nd and 3rd defendants and in effect failed to establish ownership of the land the subject matter of this suit.
7. Whether the trial court was right to have held that the plaintiff’s allocation was made after that of the 1st defendant and after the development was completed that the plaintiff has failed to establish trespass against the 1st defendant.

The 1st respondent in its brief deemed properly filed and served on 17th September, 2023 formulated 4 issues for determination.

The issues are as follows:

1. Whether the learned trial Judge was not right to have considered the statement of defence of the respondents in determining the suit.
2. Whether the learned trial Judge was not right in holding that (a) exhibit (3) was not accepted by the appellant, (b) the court cannot speculate on the contents of the development lease agreement that was not tendered in court.
3. Whether the learned trial Judge was not right when she refused to hold that exhibits 5, 6, 9, 16, and 17 constitute estoppel against the 2nd and 3rd respondents and that the contradictions in the evidence of the 2nd and 3rd respondents relieved the appellant of the burden of proof that she is entitled to declaration of title.
4. Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he held that the appellant failed to establish trespass against the 1st respondent.

The 2nd and 3rd respondents in their brief of argument filed on 19th October, 2022, deemed properly filed and served on 17th September, 2023 formulated 5 issues for determination. The issues are as follows:

1. Whether the learned trial Judge was right to have allowed the 2nd and 3rd respondents rely on their joint statement of defence in defending this suit.
2. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in refusing to enforce a purported development lease agreement which was never placed before him in favour of the appellant.
3. Whether considering exhibits 5, 6, 9, 16, and 17, the learned trial Judge was not right when he refused to hold that the doctrine of estoppel cannot avail the appellant against the 2nd and 3rd respondents.
4. Whether the alleged contradictions in the evidence of the 2nd and 3rd respondents evidence relieved the appellant of the burden to prove its entitlement to the relief for a declaration of title.
5. Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he held that the appellant failed to prove trespass against the respondents.

On issue 1, the appellant stated that the trial court granted the 1st 2nd and 3rd respondents an order extending time for them to file their respective statement of defence. That the 1st respondent never filed any statement of defence duly accessed and paid for. That none of the respondents filed a separate statement of defence as required by law.