Abba V. Abba Aji & Ors (2022)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.

This appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal Jos Division or lower Court or Court below, Coram: Tine Tur, Ibrahim Shata Bdliya and Elfrieda O. Williams- Dawodu JJCA, delivered on 3/12/2014 wherein the Court below overturned the judgment of the trial Court of 6th November, 2012 and allowed the appeal, entering judgment in favour of the 1st respondent as per his counter-claim. The decision of the Court below was a declaration that the sale to the 1st respondent of house No. 24, Benue Road, Old GRA, Maiduguri was proper and lawful and thus set aside the earlier grant to the appellant of the Certificate of Occupancy No. BO/41496 of 18th September, 2002 over the same property.

BACKGROUND FACTS

The appellant herein as plaintiff before the trial High Court Maiduguri filed Suit No. M/76/2005 against the 2nd and 3rd Respondents herein as 1st and 2nd defendants. The 1st Respondent herein was joined as a 3rd defendant at the trial and as a result, the Appellant had to amend his statement of claim and the 2nd and 3rd Respondents equally amended their statement of defence. The 1st respondent filed his statement of defence and counter-claim against the appellant.

The appellant in his amended statement of claim sought the following reliefs:-

1. A declaration that the purported revocation of the plaintiff’s certificate of occupancy No: BO/41496 over the property (Government Quarters) known as No: 24 Benue Road, Old GRA, Maiduguri as contained in the letter reference BO/41496 of 7/7/2005 is a violation of the plaintiff’s right which is enshrined under Section 44 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and same is null and void and of no legal effect.
2. A declaration that the plaintiff is still the holder of the certificate of occupancy No: BO/41496 over all that Government Quarters known as No. 24 Benue Road, old GRA Maiduguri granted on 23rd October, 2002 and registered on 7th November, 2002 as No. 679 at page 679 in Volume 21 at the Lands registry Maiduguri.
3. A declaration that the purported sale of house No. 24 Benue Road, Old GRA, Maiduguri to the 3rd defendant by the 1st and 2nd defendants and their representatives vide a letter of 7/7/2005 and Deed of Assignment of 20th July, 2005 is null, void, ultra vires and of no legal effect.
4. An order of injunction restraining the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants jointly and severally by themselves, agents, servants, privies, representatives and/or assigns from removing and/or evicting the plaintiff from the Government Quarters known as No. 24 Benue Road, Old GRA, Maiduguri, covered by the certificate of occupancy No: BO/41496 registered as No. 679 at page 679 in Volume 21 at the Land Registry, Maiduguri.
5. The cost of this suit.

After the exchange of pleadings and a full trial, the learned trial judge delivered his judgment on 6/11/2021 and granted all the reliefs sought by the appellant herein and dismissed the 1st respondent’s counter-claim.

The facts leading to this appeal are thus:-

The 3rd Respondent owned a landed property known as government quarters situated at No. 24 Benue Road, Old GRA Maiduguri, which is the property in dispute.

The Borno State Government which is the 3rd Respondent herein allocated to 1st Respondent the said government quarters in 1983 being a civil servant of the 3rd respondent and the 1st respondent continued to be in occupation up to 2003 as his rent was being deducted from his salary up to 2003.

Much earlier than the year, 2002, the 3rd respondent introduced a policy though not formally, whereby Civil Servants occupying various government quarters in the GRA and other places in Maiduguri were given the right to apply for the purchase of the Government Quarters. The policy is known as OWNER OCCUPIER. This is strictly on owner-occupier basis. In other words, anyone who is not in occupation of government quarters is not eligible to benefit under the policy.

This policy was received with great joy by the civil servants in the state since the policy is aimed at making them own the houses occupied by them, but to some their joy was short lived because the policy was not formally introduced rather it was a sort of experiment which was hijacked and abused by some influential citizens of the state. Those influential citizens benefited from the policy even though they were not occupants of the quarters thereby depriving those eligible to benefit in accordance with the policy.

​

The side of the story of the 1st respondent is that he was one of those who happened to be the victim of the policy that was hijacked as he was denied the opportunity to buy the quarters he was in occupation since 1983 up to 2003, until 2005 when the government intervened and revoked the sale of the houses to those influential citizens and sold same to those legally to benefit in accordance with the owner-occupier policy.

The way 1st respondent was deprived from buying the house in accordance with the policy of the owner-occupier in 2002 are as follows: