Bakari V. Ogundipe & Ors (2020)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C.

The 1st Respondent/ Plaintiff served in the Federal Civil Service for thirty-five years. She ended her career as a Federal Civil Servant as the Director of Library Services of the Supreme Court. She retired on 15 January, 2004 after thirty-five 35 years unblemished service in the Federal Civil Service. While in service in the Supreme Court she was allocated a 3 bedroom duplex at Block D44, Flat 3, Zone F Extension Apo Abuja, as her official quarters. She lived in the property thereafter. On 1 October, 2003, the Federal Government commenced a monetization policy of fringe benefits in the Civil Service. The thrust of this policy among other things was the sale of Federal Government Houses (i.e. residential Houses, etc). By this policy, the 1st Respondent was entitled to be given the right of first refusal since she had been living in the house for over five years. The 1st Respondent was interested in acquiring the house, so she wrote a letter to the Head of Service of the Federation, through the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court wherein she indicated her interest to purchase the House in line

1

with the monetization policy which took effect from 1 October, 2003.

The process for purchasing Houses took a different turn when the Federal Government transferred the purchase of Houses to the Respondents’. The Respondents’ proceeded to issue Sales guidelines and requested the 1st Respondent to fill and submit a Form for the expression of interest to purchase the said House, i.e. 3 bedroom duplex at Block D44, Flat 3. The 1st Respondent completed and submitted the Form. By a letter dated 8 August, 2005, the 2nd Respondent rejected the 1st Respondent’s application on the ground that she was not qualified to apply as a career civil servant since she retired on 15 January, 2004. The 1st Respondent protested to the 2nd Respondent. By a letter dated 8 August, 2005, the 2nd respondent invited the 1st Respondent to participate in a public bidding as a member of the general public. She participated, while still contesting the 2nd Respondent’s decision to deny her, her right of first refusal as a career civil servant. While awaiting the results of the public bid, the 1st Respondent travelled to England for urgent medical attention. It was while she was

2

recuperating in England that the 2nd Respondent announced that the apartment had been won by the 3rd Respondent. On her return to Nigeria, she made enquires as to what happened to her application. She was told at the 2nd Respondent’s office that her Form was misplaced. The 2nd Respondent realized their mistake, and to correct the error, she was given yet another FORM which she filled and submitted with a Bank draft. See Exhibit FAO 12 (1) and (2). She had to vacate the house when she received a quit Notice dated 21 April, 2006. When all efforts by the 1st respondent failed to redress her plight she filed an action in a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory. The appellant and 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents were the defendants.

The 1st Respondent as Plaintiff claimed the following reliefs on a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim filed on 27 April 2006:-

1. A DECLARATION that the plaintiff is a beneficiary of the Monetization Policy of the Federal Government of Nigeria having been in active service as at the time the policy took effect.
2. A DECLARATION that the plaintiff has accrued right as a result of her being in active

3

service when the Monetization Policy began.

3. AN ORDER directing the 1st and 2nd Defendants to give the plaintiff the opportunity to exercise her right of first refusal in respect of Flat 3 Block D44, Zone D extension Apo Legislative Quarters, Abuja.

IN THE ALTERNATIVE

4. A DECLARATION that the plaintiff was entitled to be given fair consideration in the bidding exercise carried out by the 1st and 2nd Defendants in September and November 2005, the Plaintiff having submitted the expression of interest form in respect of Flat 3, Block D44, Zone D Extension, Apo Legislative Quarters, Abuja for the said bidding exercise.
5. A DECLARATION that the non-consideration of the plaintiff in the said public bidding before awarding the said flat to the 3rd defendant is null and void.
6. A DECLARATION that the purported sale of flat 3, Block D44, Zone D extension Apo Legislative Quarters, Abuja to the 3rd defendant is null and void.
7. AN ORDER restraining the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants, their privies, agents, servants, employees, or anybody deriving authority from them from distributing, ejecting, evicting, dispossessing,

4

quitting, forcefully removing, harassing and or intimidating the plaintiff from peaceful enjoyment of the said property until she so exercises her right.

8. And for such further order or other orders as the plaintiff may be entitled to under the law and constitution.

The Plaintiff filed a 39 paragraph statement of claim, while the 1st and 2nd Defendants filed a joint Statement of defence of 8 paragraph. The 3rd defendant filed a 16 paragraph statement of defence. The 4th Defendant did not file a statement of defence.