Dr. Abdu Ho V. Mustapha Abubakar & Ors (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, J.C.A. 

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Kaduna State High Court holden at Kaduna in Suit No.KDH/KAD/668/1999, delivered on 7/11/2006 by Hon. Justice T. Zailani J, now Chief Judge of Kaduna State, wherein the claims of the 1st and 2nd Respondents were granted.

The 1st and 2nd Respondents’ Claims at the lower Court against the Appellant vide a Statement of Claim dated 12/11/1999 and filed on 18/11/99 contained at pages 39-44 of the records were as follows:
1. A DECLARATION that the 1st Plaintiff having being duly and validly allocated the piece of land situate and lying at Plot No. AR 8 Attahiru Road, Malali Kaduna is entitled to right of Occupancy over same as evidenced by the Statutory Right of Occupancy No. KD. 5266 executed by the 1st Defendant on the 22/3/98,
2. A DECLARATION that the 1st defendant or its agents/agencies can only validly revoke the 1st Plaintiff’s right of Occupancy and the title in the said property situate at Plot No. AR.8 Attahiru Road, Malali, Kaduna strictly in accordance with the relevant laws and particularly the Provision of the

1

Land Use Act (CAP. 202) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990.
3. A DECLARATION that the purported revocation of the 1st Plaintiff’s said Right of Occupancy No. KD. 5266 by the 1st Defendant vide a purported revocation order dated 24/5/99 is ultra vires, unconstitutional and therefore null and void.
4. AN ORDER setting aside the said revocation order dated 24/5/99.
5. A DECLARATION that the non-service of the purported revocation order on the 1st plaintiff renders same null and void.
6. A DECLARATION that the purported re-allocation of the said property situate at Plot No. AR.8 Attahiru Road Malali, Kaduna by the 2nd and Defendants to the 4th Defendant is ultra vires null and void.
7. AN ORDER setting aside the re-allocation of the said property to the 4th Defendant.
8. AN ORDER directing the 1st and 2nd Defendants to effect rectification of files No. KDL. 49756 and NCL.24701 in respect of the said property with a view to streamlining same with the above stated declarations.
9. AN ORDER of injunction in perpetually restraining the Defendants and particularly the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants from further taking steps to perfect the

2

re-allocation of the said property to the 4th Defendant.
10. AN ORDER of injunction in perpetually restraining 4th Defendant from carrying out any development in the said property.
11. General and special damages against the 4th Defendant in the sum of N500,000 for the unlawful demolition of the Plaintiff’s wall fence on the said property.

After been served, the Appellant counter-claimed vide an amended Statement of Defence dated 7/9/2004 and filed on 22/9/2004 contained at pages 55-60, as follows:
1. A declaration that the 4th defendant has been at all material times to action deemed holder of a statutory right of occupancy over the piece and parcel of land situate at and described as Plot No. AR8 Attahiru Road Malali, Kaduna which has crystallized evidenced by Certificate of occupancy No.029007.
2. A declaration that the plaintiff right of occupancy over the disputed land subsequently correctly revoked, is null and void on the ground that the 4th defendant deemed statutory right of occupancy over the same land was never revoked and same is still valid and subsisting.
?
The 1st Respondent pursuant to his application for allocation of land

3

in Kaduna State sometime in the year 1997 was duly allocated a parcel of land situate at No. AR.8 Attahiru Road on TPO 418D, Malali Kaduna. The offer letter for the grant of the disputed property to the 1st Respondent was admitted as Exhibit P1 and the Statutory Certificate of Occupancy issued in the name of the 1st Respondent evidencing his title to the disputed property was admitted as Exhibit P2. Sequel to the allocation of the disputed property to the 1st Respondent, he authorized the 2nd Respondent, his uncle, to assist in the erection of a wall fence on the disputed property which was accordingly done by the 2nd Respondent. The 1st Respondent later discovered that the wall fence erected on the disputed property was substantially destroyed and upon enquiry, it turned out that the Appellant who resides in the adjacent property to the disputed property was responsible for the demolition of the wall fence erected, consequent upon which a criminal complaint was lodged against the Appellant at the Malali Division Police Station, Kaduna, for mischief and trespass. The Divisional Police Station, Malali, Kaduna, as part of their investigation after the invitation

4

extended to the Appellant, demanded clarification as to the status of the disputed property from the 4th Respondent, who by a letter admitted as Exhibit D2 confirmed the title in the disputed property in favour of the 1st Respondent. The Appellant equally by a letter admitted as Exhibit P6 conceded title in the disputed property to the 1st Respondent. Upon the plea of the Appellant, the 1st and 2nd Respondents informed the Divisional Police Officer in Malali, Kaduna, wherein the Appellant was reported, that they were no longer interested in pressing the charges of mischief and trespass against the Appellant and the matter was put to rest.
The 2nd Respondent at the instance of the 1st Respondent built another wall fence on the disputed property; only for the Appellant to demolish same again and when confronted, he informed the 1st and 2nd Respondents that the Certificate of Occupancy issued to the 1st Respondent in relation to the disputed property has been revoked by the 3rd Respondent and a new Certificate of Occupancy in relation to the disputed property has been issued in his name. The above information prompted the 1st Respondent to engage the services

5

of his solicitors, who discovered that the Certificate of Occupancy issued in favour of the 1st Respondent and admitted as Exhibit P2 has been revoked on the ground that same was issued in error.