African Petroleum Plc. & Anor. V. Otunba Jonathan Olaniyan Farayola (2009)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OYEBISI F. OMOLEYE, J.C.A,

This appeal is against the judgment of Idris M.J. Evuti J., of the High Court of Niger State holden at Kontagora, delivered on 7/11/2006.

The facts of this matter briefly stated are that, the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent) claimed against the defendants (hereinafter referred to as the Appellants) the following reliefs:

(i) Declaration of title to the land lying and situate at Kontagora covered by Certificate of Occupancy No. NSS 1744 dated 30th December, 1979 registered as No. 137 at page 137 in volume 4, at the Lands Registry, Minna

(ii) Recovery of possession of the said parcel of land

(iii) An order of Interlocutory Injunction to restrain the 1st Defendant, its agents, privies and or servants from carrying on activities i.e. sales and or procurement of petroleum and a/lied products on the parcel of land covered by Certificate of Occupancy No, NSS 1744 pending the final determination of this suit.

(iv) Substantial Costs.

The 1st Appellant filed its statement of defence and counter-claimed for the following reliefs:

(1) A declaration that the equitable rights of the 1st defendant created by the registered sublease agreement dated 9th August, 1990 still subsists.

(2) A declaration that the transfer of title to the land in dispute to the plaintiff did not extinguish the subsisting equitable right of the 1st defendant.

(3) An order of this Honourable Court restraining the plaintiff, his agents, privies or any body acting for him or on his behalf from issuing a notice to quit, or attempting to eject the 1st defendant by whatever means until its equitable right under the sublease agreement between it and Umaru Rigiza has duly expired in the year 2020.

The 2nd Appellant filed its statement of defence contained in pages 36 to 38 of the record of appeal and urged the trial Court to dismiss with cost the claims of the Respondent on the grounds that they are baseless, frivolous and speculative.

Pleadings were appropriately exchanged among the parties and trial commenced. In proof of his claim, the Respondent gave evidence, called one witness and tendered a variety of documents in evidence, twelve exhibits in all. The 1st Appellant in establishing its defence and counter-claim, called two witnesses, tendered seven Exhibits; while the 2nd Appellant called one witness.

The case of the Respondent was that, he purchased the property in dispute from the family/heirs of one late Alhaji Umaru Rigiza. The 1st Appellant claimed that there was a valid leasehold agreement between it and the late Alhaji Umaru Rigiza in respect of the property in dispute. That the leasehold agreement was subsisting at the time the property was allegedly purchased by the Respondent. At the end of trial, learned counsel for the parties in obedience to the order of the trial Court filed and exchanged written addresses. In a considered judgment delivered on 7/11/06, the learned trial Judge founded for the Respondent.