Deaconess (Mrs) Felicia Ariwola Ogundipe V. The Minister Of Federal Capital Territory & Ors (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MOORE A. A. ADUMEIN, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The appellant was the plaintiff in Suit No.FCT/HC/CV/7361/2004 which was heard and determined by Hon. Justice A. M. Talba of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.

The claims of the appellant, as endorsed in both the writ of summons and her statement of claim are hereunder reproduced:

“1. A Declaration that the plaintiff is a beneficiary of the Monetization Policy of the Federal Government of Nigeria, having been in active service as at the time the policy took effect.

2. A Declaration that the plaintiff has an accrued right as a result of her being in active service when the Monetization Policy began.
3. An Order directing the 1st and 2nd defendants to give the plaintiff the opportunity to exercise her right of first refusal in respect of Flat 3 Block D44, Zone D Extension Apo Legislative Quarters, Abuja.

IN THE ALTERNATIVE

4. A Declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to be given fair consideration in the bidding exercise carried out by the 1st and 2nd defendants in September and November 2005, the plaintiff having submitted the expression of interest form in respect of Flat 3, Block D44, Zone D Extension, Apo Legislative Quarters, Abuja for the said bidding exercise.
5. A Declaration that the non-consideration of the plaintiff in the said public bidding before awarding the said flat to the 3rd defendant is null and void.
6. A Declaration that the purported sale of Flat 3, Block D44, Zone D Extension, Apo Legislative Quarters, Abuja to the 3rd defendant is null and void.
7. An Order restraining the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants, their privies, agents, servants, employees or anybody deriving authority from them from disturbing, ejecting, evicting, dispossessing quitting, forcefully removing, harassing and or intimidating the plaintiff from peaceful enjoyment of the said property until she so exercises her right.
8. And for such further order or other orders as the plaintiff may be entitled to under the Law and Constitution.”

The suit was defended by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents who were the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants, respectively, in the court below. The 1st and 2nd respondents filed a joint statement of defence, which spans pages 245-249 of the record.

The 3rd respondent’s statement of defence covers pages 262-279 of the record. After hearing the parties, the learned trial judge in a reserved judgment (pages 384-406 of the record) delivered on 18/11/2009 dismissed the appellant’s claims. Being dissatisfied with the decision of the learned trial judge, the appellant filed a notice of appeal containing the following three grounds:

“1. GROUND ONE

The trial judge erred in law when it misconstrued and mis-applied the principle of vested interest to the facts of the case before it.

PARTICULARS OF ERROR

(i) The enjoyment of the right of first refusal by the occupier of the property the subject matter of the suit was not subject to what the court describe as “being a serving career public servant”.

(ii) It was unanimously agreed that the commencement of the Monetization Policy by the virtue of which the plaintiff was entitled to the opinion of first refusal was in 1st October, 2003.

2. GROUND TWO

The learned trial judge erred in law when he held that the vested right of the plaintiff was subject to her being a “serving career public servant”.

PARTICULARS OF ERROR IN LAW