Yusuf Abdulkarim Suleiman v. Mallam Alalakpe Bahago & Ors (2024)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, JCA (Delivering the leading judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Nasarawa State, Lafia Division, Coram: John A. Viko J, in suit No. NSD/K35/2006: Yusuf Abdulkarim Suleiman v. Mallam Alalakpe Bahago & Ors. delivered on 29/7/2015, in which the claims of the appellant as claimant against the respondents as defendants were dismissed, while the counter-claims of the 2nd and 3rd respondents were granted against the appellant.

The appellant was dissatisfied with the said judgment and had appealed against it vide his notice of appeal filed on 16/9/2015 on sixteen grounds of appeal. See pages 471 – 483 of the record of appeal.

The record of appeal was duly compiled and transmitted to this court on 10/12/2015. With the leave of court, the amended notice of appeal was filed on 15/2/2022 on twenty-four grounds of appeal but was deemed as properly filed on 16/2/2022.

The parties, that is the appellant and the 3rd respondent only, filed and exchanged their briefs.

At the hearing of the appeal on 16/1/2024, D. A. Dalong Esq., represented the 3rd respondent and adopted the 3rd respondents brief as his arguments in opposition to the appeal and urged the court to dismiss the appeal for lacking in merit. The appellant and the 1st and 2nd respondents, though served with hearing notices on 9/1/2024, were neither in court nor represented by counsel. The appellants brief was thus, deemed as argued pursuant to Order 19 Rule 9(4) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021.

By a writ of summons filed on 24/11/2006, before the lower court, the appellant as claimant claimed against the respondents as defendants the following reliefs, namely:

1. A declaration that the plaintiff’s father late Abdulkadim Suleiman had legally and lawfully, purchased that farmland measuring 7.8 hectares lying and situate at a place called Shibo near Old Karu, Karu Local Government Area Nasarawa State within the jurisdiction of this court for the sum of N700,000.00 from the 1st defendant.
2. A declaration that the plaintiff’s father late Abdulkarim Suleiman being the rightful owner of the said farmland is entitled to the exclusive possession, quiet and peaceful enjoyment, and occupation against the defendants, their privies, agents, assigns, successors and any other person for that matter.
3. A declaration that any other sale and/or purchase conducted by the defendants is illegal null and void and of no effect.
4. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, privies executors, or assigns from further trespassing, selling, leasing or tempering and entering upon the farmland measuring about 7.8 hectares lying and situate at a place called Shibo near Old Karu within Nasarawa State.
5. A declaration that the acts of the defendants constitute acts of trespass, hence the Order for injunction.
6. The sum of N4,000,000.00 being general damages for the acts of trespass, inconveniences, trauma and embarrassment caused by the defendants.
7. Cost of this action. See pages 4 – 5 of the record of appeal.

In response, the 2nd defendant had by his counter-claim against the appellant claimed the following reliefs, namely:

1. A declaration that the 2nd defendant is the owner of the land measuring about 7 Hectares lying, being and situate at Shebwokpma, Karu Local Government Area of Nasarawa State and that he is the only person that is entitled to be issued a certificate of occupancy over same.
2. A declaration that plaintiff is a trespasser and has no right over the said parcel of land or the adjoining land thereof.
3. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff either by himself, privies assigns, agents, or servants from further entry or trespass into or alienating, selling, conveying or otherwise tampering with the said land and the adjoining land thereof measuring about 11 Hectares which the 2nd defendant purchased from Mami Dachor referred to in paragraph 22 supra.
4. The sum of N500,000.00 only as general damages. See page 88 of the record of appeal.

On his part, the 3rd respondent had by his counter-claim against the appellant claimed the following reliefs, namely:

1. declaration that the ownership, title and rights to Plot No. R. of O NS8210/24 measuring about 5.00 hectares and R. of O. No. NS8212/21 measuring about 1.8 hectares situated at Tudui Rafi New Karu, Karu L.G.C lies in the 3rd defendant.
2. A declaration that by entering into the same and constructing excavations, the plaintiff have trespassed on the plot and cause damage thereto
3. A declaration that any sale and/or purchased purportedly conducted on the plots by the plaintiff and/or his associates or agents is illegal, null and void and of no effect.
4. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff, his agents, representatives, assigns and privies from continuing effectuating any further or other acts of trespass to the plots.
5. Damages from wrongful entry and trespass by the plaintiff to the 3rd defendant’s plots in the sum of N15,000,000.00
6. Cost as may hereinafter be assessed by the court. See page 77 of the record of appeal.

Brief statement of facts

The appellant as claimant had commenced an action before the lower court claiming a declaration that his late father had legally and lawfully purchased the land in dispute from the 1st respondent at the rate of N700,000.00, and was therefore, entitled to exclusive, quiet and peaceful enjoyment and occupation of same against all the respondents, their privies agents and assigns. He had also sought for an order invalidating all other sale of the land in dispute between the respondents.

His case was that his late father, Abdulkarim Suleiman, from whom he inherited the land in dispute, had purchased the land in dispute in the year 2000 from the 1st respondent and for which the parties entered into an agreement as in exhibit 3, evidencing the transaction and payment of the purchase price of N700,000.00 on 3/5/2000 to the 1st respondent.

His father went into possession of the land in dispute between the years 2000 and 2005, when the 2nd Respondent commenced his false claim of having purchased the land in dispute from the 1st Respondent, a claim which both the 1st and 2nd respondents vehemently denied in their pleadings, and the 2nd respondent also counter-claimed for title to the land in dispute. See pages 4 – 9, 83 – 85 and 248 – 252 of the record of appeal.

The case of the 3rd Respondent was that he purchased the land in dispute from one Shekpelo Autain 1978, and which transaction was reduced into writing, tendered in evidence as exhibit D4.