Adesegun Ogunsanya & Anor V. Skye Bank Plc (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

At the lower Court, the Claimants/Appellants had initiated an originating summons in Suit No IKD/M/8/2009 dated and filed on the 10th of February, 2009 against the Respondent, in that by virtue of

(1) The Letters of Administration (without will) No PHC. 2, 211/92 dated 20th November, 1992 of the real and personal property of Simeon Babatunde Adeola Ogunsanya of 22, Rademo Compound, Hundu Street, Ikorodu, Lagos State and

(2) The Certificate of Occupancy No 53/53/1996K dated 15th December, 1995 and registered as No 53 on page 53 in volume 1996K of the Register of Deed kept at the Lagos State Land Registry, Lagos, Nigeria.

they are the holders of the statutory right of occupancy of the land, pursuant to Section 34(2) of the Land Use Act, and are thereby entitled to possession. And that the person in occupation is/are in occupation without their licence or consent. – Page 1 of the Record of Appeal.

The originating summons is supported by an affidavit of nine (9) paragraphs deposed to by one Subulola Aishat Guillo, Legal Practitioner in the Law Firm of the Claimants/Appellants’ Solicitors, for, and on behalf of the Claimants – pages 2-5 of the Record of Appeal.

The Claimants/Appellants’ affidavit in support of the originating summons in essence, states facts regarding their title and interest in the land, and the circumstances in which the land and building(s) have been occupied without their knowledge, licence or consent were stated, and out of which their claim for possession arises.

The Claimants/Appellants story at the lower court can aptly be put thus:

The claimants/Appellants’ father and predecessor in-title purchased the premises and parcel of land, in April 1945. The Claimants/Appellants permitted Eko International Bank of Nigeria Plc to enter the land to erect a building thereon.

There is no privity of contract between the Claimants/Appellants and the Respondent in respect of the building erected on the land by Eko International Bank of Nigeria Plc.

The Claimants/Appellants’ claim for an order of recovery of possession of the land in dispute must fail, because they are not in possession of the land in dispute at the time this action was brought, due to the Respondent’s purported squatting and trespass on the land.

The Respondent had filed a Counter affidavit in response to the originating summons – pages 25-27 of the Records. In essence, while admitting that there is a lease agreement between the Appellants and Eko International Bank Plc, of 40 years, Eko International Bank (EIB) however, is one of the five banks that merged into the present Skye Bank Plc, and consequently Skye Bank Plc, had taken on all the assets and liabilities of the five banks so merged. Consequently the Respondent has now taken over the 40 years lease of EIB granted by the Claimants/Appellants.

Written addresses were exchanged by the parties, and the learned trial Judge delivered Judgment on the 1st of July, 2009 dismissing the Claimants/Appellants’ suit.

The Claimants/Appellants are dissatisfied with the decision of the lower Court and have appealed it.