Dauda Jauro & Ors V. Hon. Commissioner, Minstry Of Land & Survey Adamawa State (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ABUBAKAR ALKALI ABBA, J.C.A. (Delivering the leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the ruling of Hon. Justice Bobbo Umar of Yola High Court in Yola Judicial Division of Adamawa State Nigeria, facts of the case are that, at the lower court the Applicant made by this Application for an ORDER OF MANDAMUS to compel 1st Respondent. Hon. Commissioner of Ministry of Land and survey to issue letter of clearance, also known and called “LETTER OF CONSENT”

The trial Judge in his ruling dated 11th November (2009) refused to grant order of mandamus to the 1st Appellant. Pages 29 to 35 is the full copy pages 33 par. 7 to page 35 paragraph (one)(1). Lower court refused to grant this order to Applicant at this court below and is now Appellant before us and Appellant filed this APPEAL NO:CA/YL/1/2011.

On 28th November, 2012 the appeal was heard and adjourned for Judgment.

The presiding Justice assigned this case to me on 28/11/2012 hence this Judgment to this date.

Appellant filed 4 grounds of appeal and distilled two issues from these 4 grounds, the Respondent filed two issues adopting the same 2 issues of the 3 Appellants.

The 3 Appellants brief was dated and filed 4th day of April, 2011 was deemed properly filed on 23/5/2012. The Respondent brief dated and filed on 23rd day of May, 2012.

The 3 Appellants filed reply brief of argument dated and filed on the 14th day of June, 2012. This reply brief made unsuccessful effort to discredit the 2 Respondents two issues and arguments on these 2 issues of the Respondents which fully adopted 3 Appellant same issues.

I prefer the Respondents language and style of stating easome the same two issues as Respondents arguments are short, clear and to the point. The 2 Respondents legal arguments and conclusion Represent The Correct And True position Of The Law.

The 3 Appellants arguments and conclusion both in Appellant’s brief and reply brief appear to me to very vague untrue and irrelevant and applicable cases were cited are wrong conclusions very strange and wrong in law.

ISSUE 1

In issue one of the 2 Respondents brief stated thus:

Whether the Appellants have disclosed sufficient legal interest to warrant the granting of an order of mandamus in their favour vis-a-vis the provision of section 22 and 27 of the Land Used Act, 1978 as their statement in support of the application for mandamus.

We agree to the submission of the 2 Respondents and seriously disagree with the 3 Appellants and hold that Appellants have not disclosed sufficient legal interest in order that court below will grant them the mandamus.