Madam Eke Bassey Eneobong & Ors v. Federal Ministry Of Lands Housing And Urban Development (2023)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, JCA: (Delivering the leading judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Cross-River State, sitting in Calabar delivered by Hon. Justice A. E. Ayade, delivered on 28th February, 2019 dismissing the claimants’ claims.

The claimants vide further amended statement of claim filed on 3/7/2017 claimed against the defendant as follows:

(a) A declaration that the claimants are entitled to a statutory righty of occupancy over all that land, situate at Ikot Eneobong in Calabar Municipality shown edged red in survey plan No: JUB/CR/002/16 (LD) dated 18th February, 2016.

(b) A declaration that the purported acquisition of the claimants’ family land now in dispute by the defendant without acquisition notice and without payment of compensation is unlawful, null, and void and of no effect whatsoever.

(c) A declaration that the purported acquisition and alienation of the claimants’ family land by the defendant to private individual is trespassory and ultra vires the powers of the defendant.

(d) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant by itself, its servants, agents, privies, and/or Eneobong & Ors. v. Federal Ministry of Lands Housing & Urban Development assigns from further alienating and/or interfering with the claimants family land shown in plan No: JUB/CR/002/16.

In its further amended statement of defence filed on 28/9/2017, the defendant denied the claims and averred that having legally acquired the land and paid compensation, it allotted the plots of land to Nigerian citizens in line with the aim of the said acquisition before the 2nd – 14th claimants led some thugs to the site, who beat its staff, and started laying out the land into plots which they criminally sold to unsuspecting members of the public.

At the trial, both parties called a witness each and tendered documentary exhibits. In conclusion of the trial, learned trial Judge having considered the parties pleadings and evidence adduced, found at pages 371 – 372 of the record thus:

“In the light of the foregoing, when placed on the legendary scale of justice, tilts in favour of the defendant and against the claimants. It is not a good practice that where a party situate as in this case, the defendant in all fairness scrupulously pay compensation agreed and computed to an amount with exactitude. It is unfortunate, I find myself in such a position, being not a Santa Claus nor a father Christmas. I would have said something, being constrained not to grant that which a party does not request. I say no more..(sic).. Consequently, the claimants’ claim fail. It must be and it is hereby accordingly dismissed.”

The appellants are dissatisfied with the above judgment and have appealed to this court through their notice of appeal filed on 22nd March, 2019 containing eight grounds of appeal located on pages 374 379 of the record.

At the hearing of the appeal on 2/5/2023, Christopher Utu-Baku leading Joy Bassey Esq. adopted and relied on the appellant’s further amended brief of argument deemed filed on 20/9/2022 together with appellants’ reply brief filed on 7/10/2022 in urging the court to allow the appeal. The respondent’s brief filed on 20/9/2022 was deemed argued pursuant to order 19 rule 9 (4) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021.

In the appellants’ brief of argument, three issues were distilled for consideration by this court as follows:

“1. Whether the learned trial Judge was right to hold that the appellants do not have locus standi to maintain this suit.