Frederick S. Alasia V. Prof. J. D. Okoh & 6 Ors. (2011)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, J.C.A (delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the decision bf the Rivers State High Court in its judgment dated 29th October 2005 in suit no. PHC/1492/98 wherein plaintiff’s claim was dismissed. The plaintiff had claimed against the defendants the following reliefs:

“(a) A declaration that the eviction of the plaintiff from his official residence on 17th September, 1998 at No. 7 Praia Crescent Ali Cape Verde University of Port Harcourt is unlawful, malicious null and void.

(b) The sum of N60,000,000. (Sixty million naira) for general and punitive damages for trespass at plaintiffs aforesaid residence and the looting of his furniture, money and other belongings.

(d) Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, Servants or privies form interfering with the plaintiffs members of his family’s occupation of his aforesaid residence or from unlawfully evicting him. Perpetual injunction restraining the 1st and 5th defendants from using any security agency including the Nigeria Police, solders, S.S.S Operation Flush, internal security in harassing, intimidating, arresting or detaining the plaintiff or any member of his family.

Pleadings were filed and exchanged. In their amended statement of defence dated 10th June 1999, the defendants denied all the facts contained in plaintiffs statement of claim. Either party called three witnesses to prove its case.

plaintiff’s case is that the defendants forcefully and unlawfully evicted him and his family from his residence. This was on 17th September 1998. The residential quarters belong to the port Harcourt University. The defendants, the plaintiff averred, acted by themselves vandalizing and damaging his properties in the process. Plaintiff asserted that the defendants unilaterally threw him out of the residence without any authorization by the University.

Defendants case, on the other hand, is that plaintiffs employment with the Port Harcourt University having been properly terminated he was, by the University’s regulations on the provision of quarters, required to vacate his official residence at No.7 Praia Crescent Ali Cape Verde at the University within a month. The plaintiff, inspite of repeated demands by the University, refused to vacate the quarters. Consequently, the University authorized a token taking over of the premises by padlocking its entrance.

In a well considered judgment the lower court, after a full trial including addresses of counsel, dismissed the plaintiff’s case. He has appealed against that judgment on a notice dated and filed on 22nd October 2005 containing ten grounds.

In compliance with the rules of the court, parties have filed and exchanged briefs of arguments which include the Appellant’s reply brief. The five issues formulated at paragraph 3.0 to 3.5 of the Appellants brief read thus:

“3.1 Whether the learned trial judge was not in error when she held that the defence led its evidence through the 1st, 2nd and 4th Defendants … and Exhibit B2 confirmed the eviction by University authorized officers.

3.2 Whether the learned trial judge considered or evaluated the evidence of the parties adequately, properly or at all, before reaching her conclusion;

3.3 whether the learned trial judge was right when she held that Exhibit A (the order of court of co-ordinate jurisdiction nullifying the purported termination of the plaintiff s employment) was not a final order of nullity upon a final determination of a contested matter or main suit, and had no nexus with the present suit.

3.4 Whether general damagees need be specifically pleaded and strictly proved in a case of unlawful and forceful eviction.