Mal. Mohammed Auwalu Kwazo V. Railway Property Company Limited & Ors (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ITA G. MBABA J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the interlocutory Ruling of Kano State High Court in suit No K/557/2005, delivered on 19/01/2006, by Hon. Justice N.S. Umar, wherein the learned trial Court refused the application for interlocutory injunction sought by the plaintiff (now appellant).

Appellant (as plaintiff) had filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:

“(1) A declaration that the lease granted to the plaintiff by the 1st defendant over a piece of land measuring 2,435m2 situated in Lagos Street, Kano by 1st defendant’s letter dated 24/11/98 Ref. No. RPC/NPP/143/VOL.3/5 more particularly depicted in the plan annexed herewith and marked red is still valid and subsisting and cannot be determined by the 1st defendant or anybody acting for, under or through it before the end of the term granted.

(2) A perpetual injunction restraining the defendants jointly and severally together with their servants, agents or anybody howsoever described, acting for, through or on behalf of the defendants, from disturbing the plaintiff’s possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of the said piece of land described in prayer (I) above!

At the same time of filing the writ, the plaintiff filed a motion on Notice praying for:

“An order of interlocutory injunction restraining the respondents, jointly and severally, acting on their own behalf or through their agents, servants officials or anybody however described from disturbing the plaintiff/Applicant’s possession, occupation and use of the piece of land the subject matter of this suit, situate along Lagos Street, Kano or from trespassing thereon, pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.”

The application was supported by affidavit with 13 exhibits. The facts of the case showed that the 1st Respondent granted the Appellant a lease of the land in question, for 21 years, for the building of a petrol filling station. The Appellant paid all the necessary fees and equally sought and obtained necessary approval from relevant government agencies for the construction of the fuel station and fenced round the subject matter.

Just as he was about to commence the construction of the filling station, he received Exhibit G, a letter of cancellation of the grant and asking for re-application for another land. The 1st Respondent stood its grounds and so withdrew the granted lease before the expiration of its terms and used the 2nd Respondent, as agent, to demolish all existing structures on the land. See paragraphs 3(i) to (l) of the supporting affidavit on pages 25 and 26 of the Records.

The 1st Respondent said what they gave the Appellant was an offer, which, even upon acceptance, was still subject to final approval by the Minister, whose final approval was eventually not obtained and the offer was finally withdrawn.

After hearing the arguments from the parties, the learned trial judge refused to make the order for interlocutory injunction, holding that Appellant had not shown existence of a legal right worthy of being protected by the Court, on the basis that the offer of a lease made to appellant in Exhibit A was only conditional and it had been revoked, by virtue of Exhibit RP1, issued by the 1st Respondent.

This appeal is against that Ruling and Appellant’s Notice of appeal, dated 23/1/2006, is on pages 57 to 61 of the Records. It discloses 2 grounds of appeal. Appellant filed his brief of arguments on 8/3/2006 and distilled 2 issues for determination from them, namely:

“(1) Whether or not the Appellant is entitled to the grant of an order of interlocutory injunction pending trial of the substantive suit (Ground 1)

(2) Whether or not it was proper for the learned trial judge to pronounce as he did on the effect of Exhibit RP1 at the stage of interlocutory application for injunction (Ground 2)