Cil Risk & Asset Management Ltd V. Ekiti State Govt. & Ors (2020)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

EJEMBI EKO, J.S.C.

The Appellant’s statutory Right of Occupancy (R of O), the grant of which was evidenced by the Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) No. DG 00104/2007 registered in the Lands Registry office, Ado Ekiti, Ekiti State, was revoked and the revocation was published in the Ekiti State Government (1st Respondent’s) official Gazette No. 1, Vol. 20 of 20th October, 2016. The Appellant, as the Plaintiff Ekiti at State High Court, sitting at Ado Ekiti, challenged the revocation contending, inter alia, that the revocation was illegal, unconstitutional and a nullity and that it be declared that he remained vested with the R of O over the disputed land – the same having neither been extinguished nor in anyway affected in law by the purported revocation. He also sought a declaration that the subsequent re-allocation of the disputed plot of land to the 4th Respondent, who allegedly actively instigated the revocation of the Appellant’s R of O, was illegal, unlawful and a nullity. The Appellant further sought a perpetual injunctive order to restrain the 1st – 3rd Defendants/Respondents from issuing any C of O to the 4th

1

Respondent and/or restraining the 4th Defendant/Respondent from howsoever interfering with his structures built on the land. In the ALTERNATIVE claims, the Appellant sought a declaration that he was in no way in default or breach of any term, condition or obligation in the C of O for the grant of the R of O.

The Appellant’s Statement of Claim at the trial Court was specially endorsed on the writ of summons taken out on 16th January, 2017. The revocation the Appellant complained of was conveyed in the official Gazette published on 20th October, 2016.

The Respondents, as Defendants, had by way of demurrer, contrary to Order 22 Rules 1 & 2 of the Ekiti State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, filed Notices of Preliminary Objection on 1st February, 2017 supported by affidavits contending that the trial High Court lacked “jurisdiction to entertain this action and pray(s) that the suit be struck out in limine”. The 1st – 3rd Respondents filed a joint Notice of preliminary objection, independent of the 4th Respondent. The 1st – 3rd Respondents’ Notice of Preliminary Objection, more exhaustive than that of the 4th Respondent’s Notice, was predicated on the

2

grounds that the suit –

i. was “statute barred having been brought outside of the three months period stipulated by Section 2 of the Public Officers Protection Act as the 1st to 3rd Defendants/Appellants issued the Claimant with notice of revocation via letter dated 16th December, 2014 on the ground that the Claimant breached Paragraph 4 of the Certificate of Occupancy.

ii. disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

In the supporting affidavit, particularly paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 thereof, the 1st – 3rd Respondents founded justification for their revoking the Appellant’s R of O on the grounds that the Appellant had serially breached and violated the terms and conditions in the C of O under which the R of O was granted; that the Appellant, instead of paying ground rents, “appealed for waiver which was not granted” and was thereby in breach of paragraph 12(ii) of the C of O – Exhibit C. They further alleged that the Appellant was in breach of paragraph 4 of the C of O that enjoined the Appellant to erect and complete buildings in accordance with the approved building plans within two years. They admitted that the Appellant had merely built a

3

perimeter fence round the disputed land. The Appellant vehemently opposed the Notices of Preliminary Objections.

In a lengthy Ruling (of 53 pages) on the two Notices of Preliminary Objection, the learned trial Judge (C. L Akintayo, J) delivered on 5th June, 2017, sustained the preliminary Objection on the grounds that the suit of the Appellant, by virtue of Section 2(a) of Public Officers Protection Act (POPA), was statute barred having not been filed within 3 months after the revocation and further that the Appellant had not disclosed any reasonable cause of action in his statement of claim. His appeal against the decision was unsuccessful – hence this further appeal. The Appellant has formulated 7 issues for the determination of the appeal. My Lords, in my firm view, two major issues stand out for the determination of this appeal, that is – whether by virtue of Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act the suit of the Appellant at the trial Court was statute barred; and whether the Appellant disclosed, in the Statement of Claim, any reasonable cause of action?