Chief Peter Adebayo Adene & Ors. V. Alhaji Inuwa Dantunbu (1994)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

UWAIS, J.S.C.

The 1st appellant was the plaintiff in the High Court of kaduna State, holden at Kaduna. The respondent was the defendant to the action brought by the 1st appellant. By application made by the respondent, the 2nd to 5th appellants were joined as co-defendants to the respondent.

The fact of the case are as follows:

The 1st appellant applied to the 2nd appellant on the 6th day of August, 1981 by a letter – Exhibit A for the grant of a piece of land to build an hotel thereon. The application was granted as per a letter- Exhibit B, dated the 14th day of April, 1983.

On meeting the conditions stated by Exhibit B, the 1st appellant was issued a certificate of occupancy No. NC 8128 – Exhibit C, the terms of which granted right of occupancy to the 1st appellant on the land in dispute for a period of 40 years commencing from the 14th day of April, 1983. Consequently, the 1st appellant applied to the Kaduna Capital Development Board for permission to fence the land in dispute. The permission was granted by the board on the 11th day of May, 1983.

Sometime after the grant of right of occupancy to the 1st appellant, he noticed that some concrete structures were being constructed on the land. On making inquiries he discovered that it was the respondent that was responsible for the building of the structures. The 1st appellant lodged a complaint with the Ministry of Lands and Survey, Kaduna State. The latter had the land in dispute inspected by its officials. On receiving confirmation of the complaint, the ministry issued instructions to Kaduna Capital Development Board to demolish the structures and this was done.

The respondent was asked to remove his building materials from the land but he failed to do so and instead he continued to remain on the land. The 1st appellant reported the refusal by the respondent to the Kaduna Capital Development Board and the Divisional Police Officer, in charge of the police station at Sabon Gari, Kaduna, but to no avail. Hence the institution of the suit by the 1st appellant in the High Court.

The respondent contended that the land in dispute was first allocated to one Muhammadu Lawal Mohammed on the 21st day of December, 1982 by the Secretary to Kaduna Group of Local Governments vide Local Government Certificate of Occupancy No. 033742. The allottee sold the piece of land to the respondent for the sum of N10,000.00 and applied to the Secretary of Local Government, Kaduna to transfer the right of occupancy on the land from him (the allottee) to the respondent. The transfer was effected and the respondent was issued a certificate of occupancy No. 037005 on the 27th day of April, 1984. As a result, the respondent caused plans to be drawn for the construction of shops and offices on the land in dispute. The plans were approved by Kaduna Local Government. It was after this that the respondent got the land cleared of bush and paid compensation for the economic trees found thereon. He started with building a wall round the piece of land and followed by a 50 feet long foundation on the land. Later he discovered that the wall which was 324 feet long and the foundation which was 135 feet wide had been demolished by Kaduna Capital Development Board. He had spent not less than N100,000.00 to erect the structures.

Before the hearing in the High Court, pleadings were ordered and exchanged. The 2nd to 5th appellants filed a joint statement of defence while the respondent filed a separate statement of defence and set up a counter-claim against the 1st appellant. The statement of claim filed by the 1st appellant averred in the main the facts narrated above. The respondent denied all the averments therein except as to the building of structures on the land in dispute. He alleged that the 2nd appellant in granting the right of occupancy to the 1st appellant as per certificate of occupancy, exhibit C, did not follow the procedures recognised legally and officially. The grant, he contended in the statement of defence, was therefore “irregular, unlawful, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.”

Paragraphs 14 to 17 of the statement of defence, which raise the counter-claim against the 1st appellant read thus –

“14. And by way of counter-claim the defence repeats all the averments contained in paragraphs 1 to 13 of the statement of defence.

15. The defendant further says that it is as a result of the plaintiff (sic) unlawful complaint to Ministry of Lands and Surveys and Kaduna Capital Development Board that the structures already erected legally on the said piece of land by the defendant that the Kaduna Capital Development Board entered into the said piece of land and pulled down all the structures then erected legally by the defendant and as a result of the negligent act of the plaintiff.
16. Consequently the defendant was unlawfully prevented in his drive to construct offices and shops as approved by Kaduna Local Government Authority on the said piece of land.
17. Whereof the defendant, as a result of the loss and damages he suffered, counter claims from the plaintiff the sum of N100,000.00 as general damages arising from the plaintiffs negligence.”

In their joint statement of defence, the 2nd to 5th respondents virtually admitted all the allegations made in the statement of claim. I consider it pertinent to quote paragraphs 2 to 11 of their Statement of Defence because they traverse the averments in the statement of defence of the respondent even though the former was filed as a defence to the statement of claim. In other words the joint Statement of Defence did not join issues with the 1st appellant but the respondent:

“2. The 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants admits paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Statement of Claim and state in addition that the said piece of land is within an urban area.

3. The piece of land being in an urban land can only be allocated by the Governor or on his behalf and not by any other authority.
4. That the said piece of land was wrongly allocated by the Kaduna Group of Local Government (sic) to Muhammadu Lawal Mohammed.
5. The 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants admit paragraph 9 and state that a letter was consequently written to joint Secretary, Kaduna Group of Local Governments advising him to find an alternative site for the affected people and caution those that may tend to tamper with the said land.
6. The 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants admit paragraphs 10 and 11 and maintain that the 1st defendant was forewarned before the illegal structure were pulled down.
7. The 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants are not in a position to admit or deny paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of the plaintiff’s Statement of Claim.
8. In addition to paragraph 3 above, the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants maintain that any purported allocation of an urban land not made by the Governor or on his behalf is unlawful, null and void.
9. The purported allocation of an urban land to Muhammadu Lawal Mohammed which was transferred and re-allocated to the 1st defendant by the Joint Secretary, Kaduna Group of Local Government (sic) is no allocation in that it is unlawful, null and void.
10. In further reply to paragraph 3 of the Statement of Claim, the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants say that in allocating the said land they observed all the laid down procedure.”

At the hearing before Chigbue, J. (as he then was) in the High Court, the 1st appellant gave evidence on his own behalf. The respondent testified and called two witnesses in support of his case. The 2nd to 5th appellants called the Deputy Surveyor-General of Kaduna State as their only witness. The learned trial Judge found for the 1st appellant and granted all his claims which consisted of –