Latifu Salami Vs Chairman L. E.D.B. & 3 Ors. (1989)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

The only issue raised in this appeal is as to the jurisdiction of and competence of the High Court of Lagos State to entertain the action instituted by the plaintiff/appellant. The contention of the appellant is that the reliefs claimed fall squarely within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Lagos State while the Respondents’ contention is that the reliefs claimed are matters falling squarely within the jurisdiction of the Lands Tribunal of Lagos State.

The plaintiff/appellant filed his writ of summons on the 5th day of August, 1970, a period of over 19 years ago claiming in terms of the endorsement on the writ of summons, the following reliefs:

“(1) The plaintiff seeks the following orders declaring

(a) that the purported acquisition by the 1st Defendant of the plaintiffs property at Surulere, in the city of Lagos and described in a Deed of Conveyance dated 30th April, 1956 and registered as No. 70 at page 70 in Volume 1055 of the Lands Registry is invalid and void.

(b) The purported lease dated 30/7/69 by the 1st Defendant to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants and registration of the same by the Registrar of Titles without compliance with the provisions of Registration of Titles Act, Cap. 181 of the Laws of Nigeria is void and rectification of the said Register by expunging the names of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants (and the Mainland Builders Stores) from the said Register.

(2) The plaintiff claims from the Defendants jointly and severally 300pounds damages for trespass to the land;

(3) Injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents or servants from further trespassing on the land.”

Pleadings were ordered, filed and served.

The statement of claim was filed on the 27th day of November, 1970, while the statement of defence of 1st Defendant was filed on the 10th day of March, 1971. The statement of defence of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants was filed on the 26th day of February, 1971. At the time the Defendants filed their statement of defence, the time ordered by the court had expired. However, on their application by motion, the High Court, on the 15th day of March, 1971, granted them extension of time in which to file the statements of defence till the 15th day of March, 1971 thus regularising the filing of the two statements of defence by their solicitors. Thereafter, the case was fixed for hearing for 3 days, i.e. 22nd, 23rd and 24th of February, 1972.

On the 22nd day of February, 1972, it was adjourned for mention on 20th March, 1972. On 20th March, 1972, the case was further adjourned to be heard on 11th October, 1973 and 18th October, 1973. On the 11th October, 1973 the case was not heard but further adjourned to be heard on the 21st and 22nd March, 1974. The case was not heard on the 21st of March 1974. Instead, it was adjourned to 20th September, 1974. On the 20th September, 1974, parties and counsel appeared before the court and a proposal for settlement out of court was made and agreed to by all counsel and the court. The proposal was that the 1st Defendant give the plaintiff another plot. The case was then adjourned to 10th March, 1975 for mention. On the 10th March, 1975 the 1st Defendant’s counsel asked for 3 months to enable 1st Defendant execute the proposed settlement. The case was then adjourned to the 12th of May, 1975.

When on 12th May, 1975 the settlement had not been effected, the learned trial Judge, O. R. I. George, J., adjourned the matter and fixed the case for hearing on the 20th day and 21st day of November, 1975. There is nothing on record to show what happened on the 20th day of November, 1975, but on the 8th day of December, 1975, the case was listed before Akibo Savage, J. As only the plaintiff appeared in court, the learned Judge ordered that Hearing Notices be served on the parties and adjourned the matter to the 2nd day of February, 1976 for mention.

On the 2nd day of February, 1976 after 1st Defendant’s counsel reported that they were doing their best to settle the matter out of court and asked for adjournment till November, 1976, the learned Judge, Akibo Savage, J., adjourned the matter to 19th July, 1976 for mention. On the 19th day of July, 1976 as the settlement had not been effected and 1st Defendant’s counsel still pleaded that there was no board in existence at the last hearing and that the new board was just settling down, the learned Judge adjourned the matter to 15th November, 1976 for further mention, the application of plaintiffs counsel for a date for hearing notwithstanding.

On the 15th day of November, 1976 when the learned Judge found the Defendants and their counsel absent from court, on the application of counsel for the plaintiff, he fixed and adjourned the case for hearing on the 17th and 18th May, 1977 and ordered Hearing Notices to be served on the parties.

On the 17th day of May, the plaintiff was present in court but the Defendants were absent. However, counsel for the plaintiff and counsel for 1st Defendant were present.