Gabriel Iwuoha V Nigerian Postal Services Ltd (2003)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

NIKI TOBI, JSC

Umuduru Postal Agency is the subject matter of this litigation. It is the hub on which the litigation rests. The appellants representing the Umuelemai Community, Mbano were the plaintiffs in the High Court and respondents in the Court of Appeal. The 1st defendant, the Nigerian Postal Services Limited, is the 1st respondent in this appeal. It was the 1st defendant in the High Court. Although 1st respondent filed statement of defence and entered appearance through counsel in the High Court, it did not take any active part. As it is, it has not filed any brief in this court; so too in the Court of Appeal. The 2nd defendant, representing Umuduru Community is the 2nd respondent in this court. He was the appellant in the Court of Appeal. And so the litigation is between the appellants and the 2nd respondent. Which is more of a litigation between Umuelemai and Umuduru.

The Mbano League built a Sub-Postal Office on a land donated by the appellants’ community. The Nigerian Postal Services Limited, the apparently dormant 1st respondent, transferred the postal agency called Umuduru Postal Agency into a new building, but retained the old name of Umuduru, thereby naming the sub-post office Umuduru Sub-Post Office.

As indicated above, the building into which the Sub-Post Office was relocated was built by the Mbano League on land donated by the Appellant’s Community. Umuduru and Umuelemai are two different towns in different clans in Mbano but situate adjacent to each other.

The Umuelemai Community did not like the transfer of the postal agency to the new building in Umuduru. They protested to the Nigeria Postal Services Limited. The protest was against the use of the name Umuduru for a facility situate in Umuelemai on land donated by Umuelemai. The Nigeria Postal Services Limited upheld the protest and by a

letter, Exhibit B, directed the Umuduru Postal Agent to find an alternative accommodation for the Postal Agency. The directive in Exhibit B was not complied with. The appellants filed an action in the High Court seeking for two declaratory reliefs and one injunctive relief.

The learned trial Judge entered judgment in favour of the appellant and made the orders sought save relief 16(c) of the Statement of Claim. In the final order, the Judge involved himself in some advisory role. He said in his judgment as follows:

“(1) The land on which the Sub-Post Office called Umuduru Post Office is situated in Umuelemai land in Umuelemai town or Autonomous Community.

(2) It is wrongful to open and operate a Sub-Post Office in Umuelemai (which incidentally) is the capital of Isiala Mbano Local Government with the name Umuduru since Umuduru is different from Umuelemai.

“I shall not make the order prayed for in 16(c) of the Statement of Claim in the manner it is couched. The Court hereby advises NIPOST in the interest of peace and true fact of the case having regards to Umuelemai being the capital or Head Quarters of Isiala Mbano Local Government to designate the Sub-Post Office by the correct and appropriate name it should bear which is Umuelemai Sub-Post Office.”

Dissatisfied with the judgment, the 2nd respondent, Jonathan Kezie, appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal set aside the judgment of the learned trial Judge and dismissed the appellants suit. Delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Kastina-Alu, JCA (as he then was) said in the penultimate and last paragraphs at page 257 of the Record:

“I have sufficiently shown that the plaintiff did not prove that the parcel of land from where the departmental post office of the 1st Defendant operates is or was over Umuelemai land. The trial court misconceived the issues for determination before it and thus disabled itself from evaluating the evidence. Also the trial court drew conclusions from facts not given in evidence. Moreover the relief of renaming the institution can only be done by administrative fiat and not by a court of law.

In the result this appeal succeeds and is allowed. Accordingly I set aside the judgment of the court below.”

Dissatisfied, the Umuelemai Community, represented by the appellants have come to this court. Briefs were filed and duly exchanged. The appellants formulated the following issues for determination: