Alhaji Usman Dantata & Anor V. Mouktar Mohammed (2000)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

AYOOLA, J,S.C.

In the High Court of Lagos State, the respondent (‘the plaintiff’) sued the appellants (“the defendants”) claiming as follows:

“(a) A declaration that the Plaintiff is the person entitled to certificate of occupancy dated 26th day of September, 1979 registered as No. 24 at page 24 in volume 1875 of the register of Deeds kept at the Lagos State Land Registry, Lagos, Nigeria.

(b) A declaration that the plaintiff is the person entitled to all that premises known as plot C Turnbull Road, Ikoyi now, 1 Jabita Close, Ikoyi, Lagos.

(c) A declaration that the agreement dated 28th of November, 1980 between the plaintiff and the 1st Defendant is null and void and not binding on the Plaintiff as the 1st defendant has breached in a fundamental manner the provisions of the said agreement.

(d) Possession of the said premises,

(e) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents and or any person whatsoever deriving authority from any said Defendant from dealing with and or interfering with the Plaintiff’s right in and over the aforesaid land and in any manner howsoever having the effect prejudicing and adversely affecting the rights of the Plaintiff in the land.”

The facts as averred in the statement of claim are that by an agreement in writing made between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and signed on 28th November, 1980 these two panics agreed to exchange their respective properties. The plaintiff agreed to transfer “his title and ownership” in an undeveloped land situate at Ikoyi, Lagos (“the property”) to the 1st defendant while the 1st defendant also agreed to transfer his “title and ownership” over his landed property situate at Sharada, Kano (“the Kano property”), consisting of four acres, two of which have been developed by the erection thereon of a factory and office building, to the plaintiff.

Pursuant to the agreement, the plaintiff let the 1st defendant into possession of the property and gave consent to the 1st defendant to mortgage the property to the International Bank for West Africa in order to enable the 1st defendant to raise money to develop it. Apparently, the 1st defendant developed the property by building a house on it as it was further averred in the statement of claim that he occupied the house built on the property for a number of years before he leased it to the 2nd defendant. It was averred that the 1st defendant “has neglected to and refused” to yield up possession of the Kano property, notwithstanding that the plaintiff had made several demands on him to perform his own side of the bargain and the 1st defendant had always asked for more time to do so. The plaintiff, upon these facts, alleged in paragraph 18 of the statement of claim that the 1st defendant (sic) actions are in bad faith and have completely breached the agreement entered to between the Ist defendant and the plaintiff on the 28th November, 1980 and rendered the agreement null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.” The defendants filed their respective statements of defence. The 2nd defendant sub-joined to his own defence a counter-claim which the plaintiff answered by filing a reply to defence and counter-claim. Although not pertinent to the issues on this appeal, by the counter-claim the 2nd defendant sought adeclaration of the High Court that he was entitled to be registered as owner of the property or, in the alternative, that the plaintiff be ordered to execute an assignment in his favour.

At the close of pleadings, the 1st defendant applied to the High Court for an order dismissing the suit on that grounds that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and that the reliefs snught by the plaintiff were “unobtainable in law”. Akinsanya, J., before whom the matter came,granted the application and dismissed the action on March 11, 1994. She was of the view that if breach of contract is alleged, nullification of the contract as claimed by the plaintiff by his relief (c) above, was not the appropriate relief to be sought. She regarded the other reliefs sought by the plaintiff, particularly the declaratory and injunctive reliefs, as “auxiliary reliefs” which, to my mind, is an apt way of describing a relief which merely supports the principal relief and cannot stand if the principal relief fails. In this case, she regarded relief (c) as the main relief and the others as merely supporting that relief and consequential to the grant of the main relief. She further held that in any event, the action was statute-barred.

On the plaintiffs appeal to the Court of Appeal from the decision of the High Court the two issues raised were whether the statement of claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action and whether the action was statute-barred. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of the plaintiff to the extent only that the learned judge was wrong in holding that as regards reliefs (a) and (b) the statement of claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action and that the action was statute-barred. In regard to the other reliefs sought the appeal was dismissed.

Uwaifo. JCA. as he then was, who delivered the leading judgment of Court of Appeal (with which Musdapher and Pats-Acholonu, JJCA. agreed) after referring to the facts pleaded, said:

“I think in those circumstances which gave rise to litigation in an action brought by the plaintiff against the 1st defendant and any other person put in possession by the 1st defendant, the plaintiff can claim a declaration that he is the person entitled to a statutory right or certificate of occupancy of the property in Lagos, because that is a fact since he has not in law ceased to be the holder of the right of occupancy granted by the Governor to him over the land. He can claim a further declaration that he is the person entitled to the said land. Declaratory reliefs are meant to declare an existing state of affairs in law. It will be conceded that the other three reliefs sought cannot be supported by the facts in the statement of claim”.

He was also of the view that the action was sustained by the declaratory reliefs sought and expressed an opinion that the plaintiff could amend his statement of claim to seek further reliefs of specific performance and damages. In a unanimous decision, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part as earlier stated. This appeal is taken by the defendants from the decision of the Court of Appeal. The only issue for determination in this appeal, as stated in the appellants’ brief of argument, is: “Whether reliefs (a) and (b) sought by the plaintiff disclosed reasonable cause of action in the sense that they are such that the court can grant against the 1st and 2nd defendants pursuant to the facts contained in the statement of claim.”