Alhaji Kawule Abubakar & Ors V. Jos Metropolitan Development Board & Anor (1997)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

EDOZIE, J.C.A. 

By a motion on notice dated 30th May, 1997 filed in the registry of this court on 2nd June, 1997, the applicants prayed for the following orders:

“1. directing the respondents to rebuild and restore to the applicants, the applicants’ stalls which were situate at the premises known as Yan Soso at the Laranto Market Jos which stalls were unlawfully destroyed by the respondents pending the determination of the appeal herein;

2. restraining the respondents from interfering with the applicants’ right to occupy the said premises pending the determination of the appeal herein AND such further orders as the Honourable Court may deem just.”

The motion is supported by a 15 point affidavit and 9 Exhibits. In opposition thereto, the respondents on 11th June 1997 filed a counter-affidavit of 6 paragraphs.

As can be garnered from the affidavit evidence and the accompanying exhibits, the facts of the case giving rise to the application may be summarized as hereunder:

The eleven applicants claim to be representatives of the Plateau Traders and Marketing Association Laranto Market Branch Jos. Prior to the incident giving rise to this case, they were carrying on their trading in market stalls or shops numbering about 193. The shops were located at the section of Laranto Market, Jos described as ‘Yan Soso’ hereafter referred to as the premises in dispute. They were put on the premises in dispute in 1976 by the then Jos Native Authority following an outbreak of fire which in 1974 gutted Jos main market. The applicants erected stalls on the disputed premises at their own expense and had been occupying the stalls and paying rates, levies and taxes to the Jos Native Authority now known as Jos North Local Government Council. It is the applicants’ case that by a quit notice dated 29th August, 1996. (Exh. 1) issued by the 1st respondent and served on them, they were ordered to quit the premises in dispute within 24 hours on the ground that their occupation thereof was illegal. According to the applicants, the 1st respondent in issuing Exh. 1 purported to act on behalf of Angona Nigeria Limited, a private liability company that claims to have acquired the land from an alleged radical owner. In reaction, the applicants by a writ of summons (Exh. 2) sued the respondents to challenge the ejection notice. Subsequent thereto, the applicants by a motion No PLD/J472m2/96 filed in the court below applied for an interim injunction to restrain the respondents from evicting them from the premises in dispute pending the determination of the substantive suit The said motion was on 17th September 1996 dismissed by Dangban J in a ruling (Exh 4) which he concluded thus: “Accordingly I rule that although the applicants have filed (sic) to move the court to uphold their application, it is hereby ordered that the respondents allow fourteen clear days from today to enable the applicants move their belongings from the disputed cite (sic) to another cite (sic) for save (sic) keeping pending the determination of their substantive suit.”

Dissatisfied by the above ruling, the applicants as per motion Exh 3 filed in the court below on 27/9/96 sought an order for stay of execution and in addition appealed against the said ruling vide the notice of appeal Exhibit 5.

Paragraphs 9 to 14 of the supporting affidavit complete the rest of the applicants’ case. The paragraphs read as follows:

“9. While the said motion for stay and the appeal were yet to be heard, the respondents brought before the trial court a notice of preliminary objection to suit No. PLD/J472/96 and on 25/4/97 the trial court ruled allowing the said preliminary objection and dismissed the suit

A copy of the preliminary objection and of the ruling thereon are herewith attached as Exhibit 6 and 7 respectively.

10. On the same said 25/4/97 that the trial court dismissed the said suit the applicants through their counsel Mr. Chris Abashi filed a motion on notice seeking a stay of execution of the ruling of the same date pending an appeal which he intended to file against the said ruling which appeal was filed on 19/5/97. Copies of the motion and the notice of appeal are attached herewith and called respectively exhibits 8 and 9 respectively.
11. After the ruling of 25/4/97 and after being served exhibit ‘7’ before close of work on that day the respondent entered the premises at 5 pm with several carpenters under the marshall of fully armed mobile policemen and destroyed the shops and goods of the applicants.
12. The applicants have not been able to carry on their normal trading occupation since their shops were destroyed and trading is the applicants’ only means of livelihood.
13. The loss of income which the applicants have suffered on account of the destruction of their stalls have occasioned great hardship on the applicants as they now find it difficult to feed themselves and their families.

Exhibit 7 referred to in paragraph 11 of the supporting affidavit supra is the ruling of the court below whereby Naron J in upholding the respondents’ preliminary objection and dismissing the applicants’ suit concluded thus:

“I have held that the preliminary objection succeeds on grounds 2 and 3 and dismissed the suit in its entirety. There is nothing left to be done in the matter. If the defendants had intended to eject the plaintiffs from the said premises, there is nothing that prevents them from doing so now and I do hereby so direct.”

Apparently it is on the strength of that directive that the respondents evicted the applicants who have reacted by bringing the instant application.

For their part, the respondents in their counter-affidavit stated, inter alia, that the applicants had no title to the disputed premises which they occupied illegally; that the applicants’ goods and materials were not damaged as they were allowed to remove them to an alternative site provided for them by the Jos North Local Government Council for carrying on their business.