Mr. Innocent Kafor & Ors. V. Mr. Ibinabo Don Pedro (2011)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

M. DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, (OFR), J.C.A (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The respondent in this appeal as plaintiff at the Rivers State High Court, commenced suit No. PHC/1014/2000 against the Appellants before us being the defendants. Respondent’s claim against the Appellants jointly and severally is for:-

“(1) A declaration that the plaintiff is the proper person entitled to the statutory right of occupancy and a fortiori to the use, occupation and enjoyment of all that property lying situate at Block 7B Road 22 Federal Housing Estate Woji in Obio/Akpor Local Government Area Rivers State.

(2) A declaration that the purported allocation of the said Block 78 Road 22 Federal Housing Estate Woji Obio/Akpor Local Government Area Rivers State to the 1st Defendant by letter Reference No. CWH/RV/WJ/279 dated 20/1/98 and signed by the 2nd defendant at the instance of the 3rd defendant is illegal, void and of no effect whatsoever.

(3) N1, 000,000.00k damages for trespass and

(4) Perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants jointly and each of them severally from further trespass or interference with the Plaintiff s quiet possession of the said property.”

Before filing his statement of defence, the 1st defendant took out a preliminary objection urging the court that plaintiff’s suit be struck out for want of jurisdiction. It was argued for the 1st defendant that since the 2nd and 3rd defendants are agents of the Federal Government and plaintiffs claim is against the acts done by these agents on behalf of the federal government, the lower court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Learned counsel to the plaintiff in reply argued otherwise.

In a considered ruling the court interalia held:-

“It is trite that in order to determine jurisdiction, the court has to look at the reliefs sought in the writ of summons or statement of claim if filed. In this case, the plaintiff has filed his claim—

The following (sic) reliefs being sought relate to statutory right of occupancy, trespass and injunction, which fall equally with the jurisdiction of the High Court.

Furthermore, the plaintiff in his statement of claim describes the defendant, to be an adverse claimant to the property and 2nd and 3rd defendant as staff of the Federal Ministry of works and Housing Port Harcourt. If there is any thing to the contrary pertaining to their status it will be deduced from evidence. It is to be noted that the defendants are yet to file their statement of defence, therefore this court has assume jurisdiction to hear this suit’ objection by the 2nd and 3rd defendants is hereby dismissed.”

Dissatisfied with the ruling, dated 16/6/2005, the defendants have appealed against same on a lone ground. Parties at the lower court would for our purpose be referred to as Appellants and Respondent respectively.

Following the neglect and/or Respondents’ refusal to file his brief of argument on being served the Appellants’ brief, the latter sought and obtained the court’s leave for the appeal to be heard on their briefs alone. At the hearing of the Appeal, learned Appellants’ counsel adopted and relied on their brief of argument at paragraph 2.0 of which the lone issue distilled for the determination of the appeal reads:-

“Whether the lower State High Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit on appeal, in view of the fact that some of the Defendants are agencies/agents of the federal Government and the issues before that court border on management or administrative decisions of the federal Government.”