Alhaji A. Ahamadu V. Attorney-general, Rivers State & Ors (1996)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

KATSINA-ALU, J.C.A.

The plaintiff Alhaji A. Ahamadu instituted an action in the Rivers State High Court against the Attorney-General of Rivers State, Rivers State Housing and Property Development Authority and Mr. Pepple Owen Solomon in respect of the property situate at No. 139 Victoria Street, Port Harcourt. The plaintiff claimed against the defendants jointly and severally for:

“(a) A declaration that the property in dispute had been validly approved for sale to the plaintiff.

(b) An order directing the Housing and Property Development Authority to communicate to the plaintiff the value of the property in dispute so that the plaintiff can pay for same.

(c) A declaration that the purported sale of the property in dispute by the Abandoned Property Implementation Committee in 1978 to Mr. Pepple is null, void and of no effect whatsoever since the said property was never an abandoned property at the time of the purported sale and as a result the Certificate of Occupancy purportedly issued by the Military Governor of Rivers State to Mr. Pepple in respect of the property in dispute which is registered as No. 36 at page 36 in Volume 138 at the Lands Registry, Port Harcourt as well as the statutory right of occupancy purportedly issued are null, void and of no effect whatsoever as a result of the aforesaid null and invalid sale.”

After pleadings were filed and exchanged but before the case proceeded to trial, the plaintiff filed a motion on notice praying for:-

“An order of interlocutory injunction restraining the 3rd defendant/respondent whether by himself, his agents, servants, privies or howsoever from exercising or purporting to exercise his right as owner and or landlord of the property in dispute i.e. 139 Victoria Street, Port Harcourt including the following:-

(i) The right to institute any proceedings against any of the tenants in the property in dispute in any law court, tribunal or any other judicial body established by law.

(ii) If any such proceedings had been instituted against any such tenant, then the right to continue prosecuting such a proceedings.

(iii) The right to put in and/or eject any tenant from the aforesaid property.

(iv) The right to demand and collect rents from any of the tenants in the property; and

(v) The purported exercise of any right whatsoever as owner and/or landlord of the property in dispute pending the determination of this suit.”

The motion was supported by a 17 paragraph affidavit. The 1st and 3rd defendants who opposed the application filed 16 and 17 paragraph counter-affidavits respectively. The matter came before Charles-Granville, J., for hearing. After hearing arguments and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge in his ruling of 19th of January, 1993 refused to grant the order sought. This appeal is from that ruling.

The plaintiff, who will hereinafter be referred to as the appellant, filed two original grounds of appeal and with the leave of this court two additional grounds of appeal. The Additional grounds of appeal were numbered 3 and 4. The Grounds of appeal altogether read as follows:-