Gani Tarzan Marine Enterprises Ltd. V. Caravelle Resources And Investment Ltd. & Anor (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

Pursuant to a ruling of the High Court of Justice of Lagos State, Lagos Judicial Division, holden at Lagos (the court below) overruling the appellant’s preliminary objection on jurisdiction in respect of a suit concerning a strip of land located at Ikoyi, Lagos, said to belong to the Federal Government, the appellant brought this appeal against the respondents questioning the said ruling.

In summary, the respondents issued a writ of summons accompanied by a statement of claim, frontloaded written statement of a witness on oath together with copies of some documents in support, claiming against the appellant at the court below declaratory and injunctive reliefs as well as damages for trespass and an order to set aside a licence granted to the appellant over a plot of land situate at Oyinkan Abayomi (formerly Queen’s) Drive, Ikoyi, Lagos.

Upon the parties joining issues on the pleadings, in which the appellant counter-claimed the right to occupy and use the same plot of land, the appellant brought a notice of preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit on the ground that it affects the validity of an administrative or executive action or decision of the Federal Government and/or its agency. The court below heard the preliminary objection. It saw no merit in it and overruled the preliminary objection accordingly.

An amended notice of appeal containing two grounds of appeal was filed by the appellants on 17-11-11. The appellants’ amended brief of argument filed on 21-6-12 formulated four issues for determination on page 3 of the amended brief. The four issues (supra) were argued chronologically.

The first issue reproduced sections 1(1)(2) and 2 of the Lands (Title Vesting etc) Act Cap L7 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, and sections 12(1)(2) and 13 of the National Inland Waterways Authority Act Cap N47 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, to submit that the writ of summons and statement of claim disclosed that the subject matter of the suit is Federal Government land leased to Diskarbog Nigeria Limited on 1-5-95, by the then Minister for Housing and Urban Development, and registered in the Federal Lands Registry Ikoyi, Lagos, which was subsequently purportedly leased to the respondents by the same Federal agency.

The first issue also contended that the appellant’s counter-claim of a declaratory relief that she is the rightful occupier of the disputed plot of land through a permit and licence for ferry services granted to her by the Federal Government comes under the jurisdiction of only the Federal High Court in line with section 251 (1)(p) and (r) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, (1999 Constitution) and the cases of Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 13 NWLR (pt.1157) 83 at 126, Attorney General of Anambra State v. Attorney General of the Federation (1993) 6 NWLR (pt.302) 692 at 742, NEPA v. Edegbero (2002) 18 NWLR (pt.798) 79 at 99 – 100, Adebileje v. NEPA (1998) 12 NWLR (pt.577) 219 at 227.

The second issue rehashed the argument on the first issue relating to section 251 (1)(p) and (r) of the 1999 Constitution and the cases of Oloruntoba-Oju (supra) and NEPA (supra) together with section 2 of the Lands (Title Vesting etc) Act (supra) and sections 12 and 13 of the National Inland Waterways Authority Act (NIWA Act) (supra) vis-Ã -vis the reliefs sought in the statement of claim to contend that by section 272(1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution read with the case of Madukolu and ors. V. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 ANLR 581 at 589 – 590 the jurisdiction of the court below does not extend to the suit brought by the respondents.

The appellant’s third issue again discussed sections 1 and 2 of the Lands (Title Vesting etc) Act and sections 12(1)(2) and 13 of the NIWA Act labeling them of peculiar nature and purposed for preservation of the disputed piece of land under the control and management of the Federal Government to aid water transportation and ferry services under the control and management of the Ministry of Transport through the NIWA that gave the appellant the licence and permit to run ferry services thereat, so the clear and unambiguous words of the two enactments should be given their natural meaning to achieve the peculiar objective of the two enactments in relation to the disputed piece of land.

The fourth issue drew attention to section 5 of the Lands (Title Vesting etc) Act stipulating that registration of the disputed area of land with the Federal Lands Registry under section 1 thereof must be in the name of the Federal Government and no other person or corporate body; and that the clear language of the provision should receive its literal meaning following the cases of Cotecna International Ltd. v. I.M.B. Ltd. (2006) 9 NWLR (pt. 985) 275 at 290, NDIC v. Okem Enterprises Ltd. (2004) 10 NWLR (pt.880 107 at 196; consequently the lease between the then Federal Minister and Diskarborg Nigeria Limited registered in the name of the latter at the Federal Lands Registry Ikoyi, Lagos, and subsequently assigned to the respondents and registered in their name at the same Federal Lands Registry, instead of in the name of the Federal Government under section 5 of the Lands (Title Vesting etc) Act, is null and void vide UAC v. Macfoy (1961) 3 All ER 1169 at 1172 – 1173. The appellant concluded by urging the appeal to be allowed and the ruling of the court below set aside with back-up order that only the Federal High Court has the jurisdiction to hear the suit.

The respondents’ amended brief dated and filed on, 20-7-12 was prefaced by objection to the proliferation of four issues for determination from two grounds of appeal by the appellant citing in support the case of Nwaogwu v. Okere (2008) 13 NWLR (pt.1105) 445 at 478 – 479 where the Supreme Court (per the lead judgments of Tobi, J.S.C.) condemned the proliferation of issues by stating emphatically that it is wrong for issues to be more than the grounds of appeal.

The respondents then proceeded to react to the issues for determination of the appellant serially, starting with the first issue to the effect that the reliefs sought by respondents at the court below and the ruling of that court on the issue indicate the parties in the suit at the court below are private bodies, not the Federal Government or any of its agencies, unlike the cases of NEPA (supra) and Adebileje (supra), which were held to be Federal agencies; also, the reliefs sought in the suit at the court below a declaration as to a statutory right of occupancy over a piece of land at Ikoyi, Lagos; setting aside a licence granted to the defendant over the said piece of land; injunction against appellant’s further acts of trespass on the said land; and N500,000 damages against the appellant for trespass on the land, do not relate to section 251 (1)(p) and (r) of the 1999 Constitution vide the case of Adetayo v. Ademola (2010) 15 NWLR (pt.1215) 169 at 191, 192, 194, 195, 204.

In responding to the second issue, the respondents’ brief adopted the arguments on the first issue (supra) and added sections 6(6)(b) and 272(1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution as interpreted in the case of Okealialam v. Nwanna (2003) 12 NWLR (pt.835) 597 at 610 – 611 to urge that section 251 (1)(p)(q) and (r) does not take away the jurisdiction of the court below to entertain the respondents’ suit.

The respondents objected to the third issue that it did not arise from any of the two grounds of appeal and amounts to the proliferation of issues and must be struck out on ground of incompetence following the cases of W.A.E.C. v. Adeyanju (2008) 9 NWLR (pt.1092) 270 at 291, Oyegun v. Nzeribe (2010) 16 NWLR (pt.1220) 568 at 577, Nwaogwu v. Okere (supra), Okwuagbala v. Ikwueme (2010) 19 NWLR (pt.1226) 54 at 62 – 63, Nwankwo v. Yar’adua (2010) 12 NWLR (pt.1209) 518 at 587; all the more so the issue at the court below is not on ownership of the disputed land by the Federal Government, nor does the ruling appealed against and the two grounds of appeal refer to the issue; as the respondents’ claim at the court below seeks to protect the lease granted to them over the disputed land by the Federal Government upon which the appellant is alleged to be a trespasser.