Chief Chika Okafor & Anor. V. Alhaji Tijjani Hashim (Galadiman Kano) & Ors. (2000)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

BULKACHUWA, J.C.A.

The plaintiff/1st respondent took out a writ of summons dated 29th January, 1999 against the 3rd and 4th defendants/1st and 2nd appellants and 1st and 2nd defendants/2nd and 3rd respondents at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Abuja seeking the following reliefs/declarations:

1. A declaration and an order that the certificate of occupancy No.FCT/ABU/KN 3641 dated 25th February, 1998 registered at the Lands Registry as FC 125 at page 125 in volume 82 on 17th March, 1998, convey to the plaintiff a valid legal title over Plot 1549 at Zone A4, Asokoro District, Abuja measuring 2204.91 Square Meters and demarcated with property beacons number PB 6326.

2 A declaration and an order that the certificate of occupancy No.FCT/ABU/KN.3641 granted to the plaintiff has not been validly revoked in pursuance to section 28 of the Land Use Act, 1978.

3. A declaration and order that the interests assumed by or purportedly granted to the 3rd and 4th defendants over Plot 1549 of Zone A4, Asokoro district, Abuja is null, illegal and void, having been assumed or granted concurrent to or during the pendency of Certificate of Occupancy No. FCT/ABU/KN.3641.
4. A declaration that the purported notice of Revocation of the certificate of occupancy No. FCT/ABU/KN.3641 dated 11th January, 1999 is null and void having been given in bad faith contrary to the spirit and letters of the provisions of the Land Use Act especially as no known conduct of the plaintiff constitutes either a probation, or a breach of any term or provisions governing the certificate of occupancy which in any case has never been brought to his attention.
5. An order setting aside the purported notice of revocation dated 11th January, 1999 on the grounds amongst others that;

(a) The basis upon which such a revocation can be founded under section 28(1) of the Land Use Act, 1978, does not exist at all or if it exists, notice of such grounds has never been communicated to the plaintiff as dictated by the ordinary norms of fairness.

(b) Failure to give the plaintiff a fair hearing of the allegations militating against his rights over the property conveyed by certificate of occupancy No.FCT/ABU/KN.3641 is ultra vires the binding provision of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979 and is to that extent a nullity.

6. An order setting aside any assignment or other rights granted to or acquired by the defendants over Plot 1549 Zone A4, Asokoro District, Abuja during the pendency of or contrary to, the plaintiff’s right vested by Certificate of Occupancy No. FCT/ABU/KN.3641.
7. An order of injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, their servants, functionaries, agents, privies, any other person or persons whatsoever and whomsoever from entering upon, selling, alienating or otherwise interfering with the plaintiff’s legal right over Plot 1549 Zone A4, Asokoro District, Abuja covered by certificate of occupancy No. FCT/ABU/KN.3641, doing any further act or things inconsistent with the right and interests of the plaintiff at Law or in Equity over the aforesaid property.

The plaintiff/1st respondent on the 1st February, 1999 obtained the leave of the trial court to issue and serve the writ of summons outside the jurisdiction of the court, an order of substituted service on the 4th defendant and an order of interim injunction restraining the defendants from doing anything inconsistent with the rights of the plaintiff 1st respondent at law or in equity over the property known as Plot 1549, Zone A4, Asokoro District covered by Certificate of occupancy No. FCT/ABU/KN.3641 pending the determination of the motion on notice.

The order was served along with the writ of summons and the case fixed for 25th February, 1999 for the hearing of the motion on notice. On the 24th February, 1999 learned counsel for the 1st and 2nd defendants/appellants filed a notice of preliminary objection that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The said notice was moved on the 25th February, 2000 the day the motion was to have been heard, and on the 24th March, 1999 the court ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear the motion overruling the preliminary objection.

The 3rd and 4th defendants now appellants being dissatisfied with the ruling have now appealed to this court challenging the decision on two grounds of appeals.

The appellants filed a brief of argument whereby they formulated 2 issues based on the grounds of appeal for determination by this court. These two issues are:

1. Whether or not the High Court of Federal Capital Territory (FCT) is a Federal High Court or a State High Court.
2. Whether or not the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory has jurisdiction to entertain suit No. FCT/HC/CV/132/99 by virtue of section 230(1)(q)(r)(s) of the 1979 Constitution as amended by Decree No.107 of 1993.

In addition the respondent also filed his brief and framed the following three issues;

1. Whether the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja has jurisdiction to entertain the suit No. FCT/HC/CV/132/99 or not.
2. What is the proper order to be made in respect of the suit if the trial court is found to lack jurisdiction?
3. Whether the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja is a Federal High Court or not.

Issues one and three formulated by the respondents are similar to the two issues raised by the appellants, they will therefore be taken and treated together, while the 2nd issue formulated by the respondents will be treated separately.

ISSUE ONE

Whether or not the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) is a Federal High Court or a State High Court.

Arguing this issue, it was the submission of the appellants that the Federal High Court was created by virtue of the provisions of section 228 and the High Court, Federal Capital Territory by virtue of section 261 of the 1979 Constitution, that the jurisdiction of each of the two courts is specifically provided for in the two sections and that section 263 of the 1979 Constitution makes the creation of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory equivalent to those in the States contending that the High Court, Federal Capital Territory (FCT) cannot be said to be a Federal High Court.