Hon. Minister Federal Ministry of Education & Ors V. Prince Ekpo Okang Ekpo & Ors (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the judgment of Michael Edem, J, of the Calabar Division of the High Court of Justice Cross River State in suit No. HC/365/2013 on the 2/6/2014.

The Federal Government of Nigeria in 1972 requested the Cross River State Government to secure land on her behalf in Calabar for the establishment of a Federal Government Girls’ College. The Cross River State Government, on behalf of the Federal Government secured 52.202 hectares of land belonging to Atogha’s family for the said purpose.

The Federal Government sent money to the Cross River State Government for compensation in respect of the 52.202 hectares of land and Atogha’s family was compensated .

In 1982, the same Federal Government of Nigeria requested the Cross River State Government to, on her behalf, secure additional land in Calabar for the same Federal Government Girls’ College, Calabar. Pursuant to this request for additional land, the Cross River State Government, on behalf of the Federal Government surveyed 11.884 hectares of land belonging to Adohose (Otu Effiom) family (1st Respondent).

?In 2006,

1

the Cross River State Government finally informed the 1st Respondent that the land was no longer needed for the college because of its closeness to the proposed maximum prison in Calabar. The Appellants were advised to release the said 11.884 hectares of land to its owners.

Consequent upon the Appellants’ refusal to return or release the 1st Respondent’s 11.884 hectares of land, despite his demands and despite the recommendation of the joint team of surveyors, the 1st Respondent filed suit No. HC/365/2013 to enforce the violation of his fundamental right guaranteed under Section 44(1) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended).

?The case as presented by the Appellants in their counter-affidavit of 10/12/2013 at pages 43-47 of the Records is that the Federal Government of Nigeria sent money to the Cross River State Government to pay the 1st Respondent as compensation for his 11.884 hectares of land and the 1st Respondent was, by virtue of a letter dated 16/2/1981, paid on the 19th and 20th February, 1981 (see Exhibit E at page 52 of the Records). The Appellant posited that the 1st Respondent’s suit is statute-barred because the cause of action

2

arose in 1982 and that by virtue of reliefs A, B, C and D, the 1st Respondent was claiming title to land as his main claim and so the suit could not be sustained under the Fundamental rights rules. That the decision of the trial Court was therefore perverse because the trial Judge raised the issue of the Appellants? failure to sign their counter-affidavit of 16/12/2013 suo motu and resolved same suo motu without involving the parties.

The Cross River State Government, on its Part, in its counter affidavit filed on 25/2/2014 states that the Federal Government of Nigeria has never given her any money to pay to the 1st Respondent for his 11.884 hectares of land.

The Appellant distilled four issues for determination thus:
“i. Whether the learned trial Judge is right to have awarded the alternative relief of compensation in this suit, when by the Fundamental Right Enforcement (Procedure) Rules, 2009, he lacks jurisdiction to entertain the main claim.
ii. Whether the decision of the lower Court is valid in view of the fact that the learned trial Judge held suo motu, that the counter affidavit of the Appellants, which contains evidence