Messrs Singoz & Co. (Nig) Ltd v. Universal Maltine Co. Ltd & Ors (2022)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C. (Delivering the Lead Judgment)

This appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal Owerri, Division delivered on 14th May 2015 allowing in part the appeal of the 1st and 2nd respondents herein and setting aside the judgment of the High Court of Abia State delivered on 14th December 2012 granted in favour of the Appellant.

A summary of the facts giving rise to the appeal is as follows:
​Sometime in 1980, before the creation of Abia State from Imo State, the Government of Imo State purportedly acquired some parcels of land belonging to the Ohuru Amaiyi people for overriding public interest.

In 1981, it granted a Statutory Certificate of Occupancy over the area in dispute known as Plot D/50 Registered as No.7 at page 7 in volume 60 at the Land Registry Owerri (now Umuahia) to the appellant for industrial purposes. In 1984, the appellant donated a Power of Attorney appointing M.A.E Chibundu as its attorney over the said property.

Sometime in 2004, the 1st respondent allegedly trespassed on the land claiming that the Abia State Government (successor to Imo State Government in respect of the area) had revoked the appellant’s title to the land and allocated it to the 1st respondent, a limited liability company (allegedly owned by the 3rd respondent) for industrial purposes. Both the revocation and allocation to the 1st respondent in fact took place on 29th March 2005. Consequently, a Statutory Certificate of Occupancy was granted to the 1st respondent.

The 3rd respondent was allegedly informed by the Abia State Government that the Ohuru Amaiyi people had not been paid any compensation for the acquisition. The 3rd respondent thereupon, on his own volition, contacted the Ohuru Amaiyi people and made a payment to them for the land.

They proceeded to grant a Power of Attorney in favour of the 1st defendant/1st respondent. This was admitted in evidence as Exhibit F. He commenced the construction of a factory on the land. It was the appellant’s contention that it was not served with any notice of revocation, nor was it paid any compensation.
​
A suit was instituted on its behalf by its attorney, M.A.E. Chibundu, against the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents before the High Court of Abia State vide Suit No. A/146/2006. The 2nd respondent was later joined in the suit on 16/2/2009 by order of the trial Court on the application of the appellant who alleged that it had purchased the land and factory from the 3rd respondent after the institution of the action.
​
By its Amended Statement of Claim dated 11th October 2011, the appellant as claimant, sought the following reliefs:
“1. A declaration that the Plaintiff being the holder of a Statutory Right of Occupancy over the property known as Plot D/50 New Industrial Layout Aba is the bona fide owner of the said plots aforesaid which is registered as No. 7 at page 7 in volume 68 in the Lands registry Umuahia.

2. A declaration that the purported compulsory acquisition of Plaintiff’s said property and re-allocation of same to the 1st and 2nd Defendants is unlawful, null, void and of no effect.
3. A declaration that the purported compulsory acquisition of Plaintiff’s said property without due compensation to the Plaintiff is unlawful, unconstitutional, null, void and of no effect.
4. An order of the Honourable Court setting aside or cancelling the purported acquisition or revocation of and/or re-allocation to the 1st and 2nd Defendants of Plaintiff’s said property by the 3rd & 4th Defendants.

5. An order of Honourable Court nullifying the purported sale of 1st Defendant’s company by the 2nd to 5th Defendants and declaring it to be illegal.
6. The sum N17,600,000.00 (Seventeen Million, Six hundred Thousand Naira) only being special and general damages for trespass into Plaintiff’s said property.
7. And (sic) Order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, assigns or privies from further trespass and/or enter (sic) into Plaintiff’s said property situate at Plot D/50 New Industrial Layout, Aba.
   OR IN ALTERNATIVE TO RELIEFS 5 & 6 ABOVE
   N10,000,000,000.00 (Ten Billion Naira) only being compensation due to the Plaintiff for the unlawful, illegal and unconstitutional purported compulsory acquisition of Plaintiff’s said property.”

Pleadings were duly filed and exchanged and the parties led evidence in support of their respective positions and tendered documents. At the conclusion of the trial and after considering the addresses of counsel, the trial Court entered judgment in favour of the appellant.

The Court held that the revocation of the appellant’s Statutory Right of Occupancy and the allocation of same to the 1st and 2nd defendants (now 1st and 3rd respondents) was illegal, null and void for failure to pay compensation to the appellant. The 1st and 5th defendants (now 1st and 2nd respondents) were found liable in trespass in the sum of N3 Million.
​
The 1st and 2nd respondents were dissatisfied with the judgment and appealed to the Court below. The appeal was allowed in part. The Court held that the 1st respondent (appellant herein) did not acquire valid title to the land because no compensation was paid to the original land owners i.e. the Ohuru Amaiyi people. It held that Exhibit B (the appellant’s Certificate of Occupancy) did not confer valid title on it.

It also held that Exhibit H (the revocation notice signed on 29/3/2005) was also incapable of revoking the appellant’s title. The Court held that the failure of the then Imo State Government to pay compensation to the original owners of the land rendered the acquisition by the appellant null and void and therefore title to the land still resided in the original owners. In the circumstances, it held that the Ohuru Amaiyi people, donors of the Power of Attorney (Exhibit F) to the 1st Respondent passed valid title to it.

Having held that the appellant had no valid title, it further held that the 2nd respondent could not be liable in trespass. The award of damages for trespass made against the 2nd respondent was accordingly set aside.

The appellant is aggrieved and has filed a notice of appeal dated and filed on 30/7/2015 containing eleven grounds of appeal. The extant notice of appeal is the Amended Notice of Appeal filed on 20/8/2019 and deemed filed on 28/9/2020 containing fourteen grounds of appeal.
​
At the hearing of the appeal on 22/2/2022, C.N. CHIKWE ESQ. adopted and relied on the Appellant’s Amended Brief of Argument filed on 20/8/2019 in urging the Court to allow the appeal. M.O. ONYEKA ESQ. adopted and relied on the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ brief filed on 25/9/2020 and deemed fifed on 28/9/2020 in urging the Court to dismiss the appeal, CHIEF EMEKA OKEKE, of counsel for the 3rd respondent did not file any brief, being a nominal party. ANOZIE OBI ESQ. adopted and relied on the 4th and 5th respondent’s brief filed on 11/2/2022 and deemed filed on 22/2/2022 in urging the Court to dismiss the appeal.

The 4th and 5th respondents raised and argued a notice of preliminary objection at paragraph 3.1 – 3.2 at pages 7-8 of their brief challenging the competence of some of the grounds of appeal in the Notice of Appeal filed on 30/7/2015 at pages 811-819 of the record.

The said notice of appeal has been superseded by the Amended Notice of Appeal filed on 20/8/2019 and deemed filed on 28/9/2020. The preliminary objection has been overtaken by events and is hereby struck out.