IHS Nigeria Limited v. Mr. Lamido Maikasuwa Ladan & Ors (2024)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, JCA (Delivering the leading judgment)

This is an appeal against the ruling of the High Court of Nasarawa State, Lafia Division, Coram: Hafsat T. Sanda, J, in suit No. NSD/LF105/2021: Mr. Lamido Maikasuwa Ladan v. IHS Nigeria Limited & Anor delivered on 30/11/2022, in which the notice of preliminary objection of the appellant challenging the competence of the 1st respondents suit was dismissed for lacking in merit.

The appellant, who was the 1st defendant before the lower court, was peeved with the said ruling and had appealed against it vide its notice of appeal filed on 13/12/2022 on three grounds of appeal. See pages 312 – 315 of the record of appeal.

The record of appeal was compiled and transmitted to this court on 10/1/2023. The parties, that is the appellant and the 1st respondent, filed and exchange their briefs, to wit: the appellants brief, and the 1st respondents brief. The 2nd respondent did not file any brief.

The appeal was heard on 25/1/2024. The appellant was represented by A. E. Sani Esq., who adopted the appellants brief as his arguments and urged the court to allow the appeal.

The 1st respondent was represented by J. A. Kigbu, Esq. who adopted the 1st respondents brief as his arguments and urged the court to dismiss the appeal. The 2nd respondent was represented by Ogechi Ogbonna SAN, appearing with Bossan Swanta Esq.

By a writ of summons and statement of claim filed on 2/11/2021, before the lower court, the 1st respondent as claimant had claimed against the appellant and the 2nd respondents as defendants the following reliefs, to wit:

1. A declaration that the plaintiff is the rightful owner of the piece of land measuring 0.474 hectares and more particularly about 272.2 Sq. Meters (55/55 feet) occupied by the defendants situate at Keffi/Abuja Federal road, beside water reservoir Akwanga, Nasarawa State.
2. A declaration that the several and continuous acts of the defendant’s entry into his land and constructing and installing their mast and other utilities is an unlawful act of trespass and actionable per se.
3. A declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to damages as a result of the complete destruction of his two-bedroom apartment valued N5,437,000.00 by the fall of two heavy concrete electric polls of the defendants.
4. An order of the court directing the defendants to pay the accrued rents to the plaintiff for the period of 19 years of running business in his land at N28,000,000.00.
5. An order of the court directing the defendants to vacate and evacuate completely from his land and return it to status quo.
6. General and aggravated damages of N1,000,000,000.00 for unabated mental torture, trauma, distress, suffering and deprivation.
7. An order of perpetual injunction restraining defendants, agents, servants, privies or who so ever from further trespassing grading, bulldozing, constructing or excavating his land.
8. The cost of filing and prosecuting this suit at N1,500,000.00.
9. Ten percent post-judgment interest. 29 – 30 of the record of appeal.

In response, the appellant, the 1st defendant before the lower court, had by its statement of defence/counter-claim filed on 13/12/2021, claimed against the 1st respondent the following reliefs, to wit:

1. A declaration that the 2nd defendant is the beneficial owner of the plot, subject matter of this suit, having purchased same from Ishaya Nelu.
2. A declaration that the leasehold between MTN Nigeria Communications Ltd, and INT Towers Limited is valid and subsisting.
3. A declaration that the 1st defendant/counter-claimant is entitled to the quiet possession, occupation and use of the property subject matter of this suit, vide the lease agreement executed between MTN Nigeria Communication Ltd and INT Towers Ltd.
4. An order of court restraining the plaintiff, his agents, privies and/or any person however described from interfering with the quiet possession, enjoyment and use of the portion of the land subject matter of this suit by the 1st defendant/counter-claimant.
5. An order of court awarding exemplary and general damages of N5,000,000.00 in favor of the 1st defendant/counter-claimant against the plaintiff.
6. 10% interest per annum on the exemplary and general damages of N5,000,000.00
7. The cost of this suit. See pages.

Brief statement of facts

The 1st respondent, as claimant, had by his statement of claim, filed on 2/11/2021, before the lower court, claimed several reliefs, including declaration of title to land, order of injunction and damages against the appellant and the 2nd respondent, as defendants. See pages 23 – 30 of the record of appeal. The appellant, as 1st defendant before the lower court, filed its memorandum of conditional appearance, statement of defence, and a notice of preliminary objection challenging the 1st respondents suit for being statute barred. See pages 140 – 150 of the record of appeal. The 1st respondents filed a response to the appellants preliminary objection on 14/2/2023. See pages 205 – 213 of the record of appeal. In response, the appellant filed its reply on points of law. See pages 263 – 274 of the record of appeal.

By the notice of preliminary objection, the appellant prayed for the striking out of the 1st respondents suit on the following grounds, to wit:

1. That the suit instituted by the plaintiff is statute-barred by virtue of section 3 of the Plateau State Edict No. 16 of 1988 as applicable in Nasarawa State.
2. That the writ of summons was issued before leave was sought and obtained.
3. That the requirement of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act was not compiled with. See page 140 of the record of appeal.

My Lords, for completeness of the facts leading to the appeals against the ruling of the lower court delivered 30/11/2022, it is worth mentioning that the 2nd respondent, the 2nd defendant before the lower court, also filed its notice of preliminary objection before the lower court challenging the competence of the 1st respondents suit on the following grounds, to wit:

1. An order of court dismissing suit No. NSD/LF105/2021: Lamido Maikasuwa Ladan v. IHS Nigeria Ltd, and MTN Nigeria Ltd for being statute barred and therefore, incompetent, in that this suit is outside the jurisdiction of the court, and an abuse of court process.
2. And for such other orders which the court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.

The grounds for the notice of preliminary objection were as follows, to wit:

1. The plaintiff alleged in his statement of claim, particularly in paragraphs 23, 24, 25, 26 that in 2002 that the 2nd defendant encroached on his land and in the same 2002 built thereon a Telecommunication Mast on an area allegedly covering 272. 2m (55/55 feet). The plaintiff also pleaded that in 2002, he wrote to the 2nd defendant to complain about the issue but the 2nd defendant ignored his complaints.
2. The 2nd defendant since 2002 was in quiet possession and peaceful occupation and use of the land upon which it built its Telecommunication Mast in 2002 throughout and at all material times.
3. The writ of summons and alleged processes pertaining to this suit were issued on 2/11/2021, upon the application of the plaintiff.
4. Since 2002, the plaintiff saw and knew that the 2nd defendant entered into the land and built its Telecommunication Mast alleged and equipment thereon, in 2002 which is still on the same land but did not file this action until 2021 about nineteen years of 2002, when the plaintiff stated that the 2nd defendant entered the land and built its Mast thereon and that in the same 2002, he wrote to the 2nd defendant to complain but got no response.
5. Over ten years had elapsed since 2002, the plaintiff alleged that the 2nd defendant entered into the land and built its Telecommunications Mast, the alleged written complain, to the 2nd defendant allegedly made by the plaintiff in the same 2002 and 2021 when the plaintiff filed this action against the 2nd defendant.
6. Claims pertaining to or resulting from the land, including for title to land and alleged trespass to land are statute-barred, if no suit is filed in court within ten years of entering into such land, and any suit not filed in court within ten years is statute-barred, and cannot be adjudicated upon by the court, and that claims for Tort or Payment of money for any Tort cannot be adjudicated by the court, where not made within five years of such wrong.
7. The suit is statured barred.
8. The suit is an improper exercise of an alleged legal right of the plaintiff. See pages 217 – 218 of the record of appeal.

On 29/6/2022, the lower court proceeded to hear the appellants notice of preliminary objection. See pages 325 – 329 of the record of appeal. On 30/11/2022, the lower court delivered its ruling, in which it dismissed the appellants notice of preliminary objection for lacking in merit and held firmly that the 1st respondents suit was competent and therefore, not statute barred as challenged by the appellant, hence this appeal. See pages 294 – 311 and 312 – 315 of the record of appeal.