Benjamin I. Adamu V. A.-g., Nasarawa State & Ors. (2006)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the ruling of Hon. Justice John A. Viko of the High Court of Justice, Keffi, Nasarawa State delivered on the 17th day of February 2005 in suit No. NSD/K47/2002.

The appellant being dissatisfied with the same ruling appealed to this court on the 1st day of March 2005.

The issue articulated for determination is as follows:

Whether or not the learned trial Judge is right, putting into consideration the claims of the plaintiff before the trial court in making pronouncement in his ruling of 17/2/2005 to the effect that the plaintiff “is not in legal possession of the land” which is the subject matter of the suit, and that “the plaintiff has been allocated another land which he has accepted and not complained” in an interlocutory application for injunction when no evidence has been led at all in the substantive suit.

The appellant filed his brief of argument on the 13th day of October 2005. The respondent failed to file its brief of argument within time.

On the 23rd day of January 2006, the appellant filed a motion on notice seeking for an order for this appeal to be heard and determined on the appellant’s brief of argument, the respondent having failed to file his brief within time.

The appellant’s counsel adopted his brief of argument filed on 13/10/2005 whilst the respondents’ counsel had nothing to urge on behalf of the respondents.

The learned counsel for the appellant in his argument stated that the power of a court to hear and determine interlocutory applications in a suit pending before it does not extend to determining the claims of the parties in the substantive suit before the commencement of hearing. Learned counsel cited the following cases to buttress this assertion, namely:

1. F.S.B. International Bank Ltd. v. Imano (Nig.) Ltd. & 1 Or. (2000) 7 SCNJ 65 at 70 ratio 141 (2000) 11 NWLR (Pt. 679) 620.
2. Thomas A. Edison Ltd. v. Bullock (1912) 15 CLR 679 at 689.
3. Nathanial Kotoye v. CBN & Ors. (1989) ANLR 76 at 109 – 110; (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 98) 419.

The appellant instituted an action against the defendant/respondent in the High Court of Keffi, Nasarawa State claiming the following reliefs:

“(a) A declaration that plaintiff is not occupying illegally and/or unlawfully the piece of land covered by Nasarawa State right of occupancy No. NS 011 measuring 0.096 Hectare lying and situate at Karu, close to Karu Local Government Secretariat, Nasarawa State which land is demarcated with property beacon Nos. P1, P2, P3, P4 and back to the starting point.

(b) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants either by themselves, their privies and/or agents by whatever name called (whether natural or artificial) or anybody for that matter from further demolishing plaintiff’s buildings and/or structures on the said piece of land in question and/or tampering with plaintiff’s peaceable occupation of same.

(c) Payment to the plaintiff” the sum of ten million, two hundred and thirty six thousand naira (10,236,000.00) as special damages being the valued cost of reconstructing and replacing plaintiff’s damaged properties.

(d) Payment to the plaintiff by the defendants the total sum of nine million, two hundred and sixty-one thousand naira only (9,261,000.00) as special and general damages for financial losses, inconveniences and embarrassment occasioned to plaintiff by the defendants and/or their agents as a result of the unwarranted activities and/or actions of the defendants and/or their agents which delayed plaintiff’s development of the land in question.