Chief Emmanuel Olatunde Lakanmi V Peter Adebayo Adene & Ors (2003)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

A. KALGO, J.S.C.

In the High Court of Justice, Oyo State, holden at Ibadan, the appellant, as plaintiff, claimed against the respondents, as defendants, jointly and severally, the following reliefs:-

“(i) Declaration that he is entitled as against the defendants to the possession of landed property and building situate thereon, lying at NW5/540, Salvation Army Road, Ibadan more properly delineated on plan attached to the instrument dated 19th September, 1964, and Registered as No. 14 at page 14 in volume 782 of the Lands Registry, Ibadan.

(ii) Possession of the said property of which the Defendants wrongly hold and continue to hold against the plaintiff”.

At the trial, the parties filed and exchanged pleadings, called witnesses and produced documents in proof of their respective cases. At the close of the case, the learned counsel for the parties addressed the trial court, and in a reserved judgment delivered on 15/1/86, the learned trial Judge, Falade, J., dismissed the plaintiff’s/appellant’s claims in toto. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal and the respondents cross-appealed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and allowed the cross-appeal. The appellant was dissatisfied and he further appealed to this court. Based on the grounds of appeal filed, he formulated the following issues for the determination of this court in the appeal:-

“1. Was the Court of Appeal right to decide on issues not properly raised before it, if the answer is in the negative whether the appellant has discharged the onus of proof that the forfeiture order was invalidly made having not complied with Investigation of Assets Edict, 1967.

2. Was the Court of Appeal right in relying on WSLN 99 of 1967 in giving judgment for the respondents when it was never pleaded and the instrument which forfeited the Appellant’s property was never tendered in court.
3. Was the Court of Appeal right to hold that the trial court has no jurisdiction to entertain the case and yet proceed to affirm the judgment of the High Court.

The respondents formulated only 2 issues which read:

“1. Whether or not the Court of Appeal was right in its decision that the jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain the Appellant’s suit has been effectively ousted by the combined effect of S.2(1) of the Forfeiture of Assets etc. (Validation Decree) No. 45 of 1968 and S.6(6) (d) of the 1979 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

2. Was the Court of Appeal right in upholding the validity of the forfeiture order made in the Western State Legal Notice (WSLN) No. 99 of 1967 and subsequently validated by Decree No. 45 of 1968 and in its view that the appellant has failed to prove the illegality or invalidity of the Decrees and Edicts and the order of forfeiture”.

The background to the case is simple and not complicated. Before 1966 or between 1964 and 1966, the appellant was a public officer in the then Western State of Nigeria, Ibadan. After the Military take over of this country in 1966, the Federal Military Government empowered State Governments to set up various tribunals to investigate assets of public officers, and take appropriate actions. As a result, the Shomolu Tribunal of Inquiry was set up in Western State of Nigeria which investigated the assets of public officers including the appellant. After the investigations, some assets belonging to the appellant and other persons were confiscated and forfeited to the Western State Government. These assets were then published in the Western State of Nigeria Notice No.99 of 1967. The property now in dispute was listed in the said notice as having been confiscated from the appellant and forfeited to the Western State Government. Thereafter, Decrees and Edicts were promulgated by the Military Government validating the forfeitures published as a result of investigation of assets.

In 1967, the appellant challenged the confiscation and forfeiture of his property which is now in dispute by an action in the High Court in Ibadan. He applied for a writ of certiorari to quash the order confiscating and forfeiting his property and declaring all the validating Edicts and Decrees applicable to the said forfeiture as null and void.

The trial court dismissed the appellant’s action and confirmed the forfeiture order. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court by his case No. SC. 58/69 and the court allowed his appeal on 24th April, 1970, declared the validating Edict, 1967 null and void and quashed the forfeiture order.

The Federal Military Government did not take kindly to this judgment of the Supreme Court and it swiftly promulgated Decree No. 28 of 1970, titled “The Federal Military Government (Supremacy of Powers) Decree, 1970”, which nullified the decision of the Supreme Court in SC. 58/69 and declared it null and void and of no effect whatsoever. This then meant that the forfeitures were revived and were validly made, and all properties forfeited by Western State of Nigeria Notice No. 99 of 1967 belonged to the Western State Government. Following this, the Western State Government advertised some of the forfeited properties including that of the appellant now in dispute, in the daily newspapers for sale. The 1st respondent saw this advertisement and after complying with the requirements thereof, he eventually selected and bought the appellant’s house at No. NW5/540, Salvation Army Road, Ibadan, from the Western State Government in 1972. The said government conveyed the property to the 1st respondent by a deed of conveyance (Exh. P.4) and put him in possession. He thereafter put the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents as tenants in the house. In 1984, the appellant brought this action for re-possession of the house in dispute.

I shall now consider the issues raised by the appellant from the grounds of appeal filed.

I shall take Issue 3 first. This issue was asking whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain the case and yet proceed to affirm the judgment of the trial court. My understanding of this issue is that the appellant was not challenging the finding of the Court of Appeal that the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain the case, but that if it did so, could it also proceed to affirm the decision of the trial court on that case. In other words, the question being asked by the appellant in this issue is that when an appellate court finds that a lower court from which the appeal came has no jurisdiction to try the matter, what orders can the appellate court make