Mrs. Grace Ukpong & Ors V. Cross Lines Limited & Ors (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

PAUL OBI ELECHI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This Appeal is against the Judgment of the High Court of Cross River State, Calabar Judicial Division delivered by Honourable justice E. Ita on the 12th October, 2009 in suit No. HC/185/1991.

The Brief facts of the case is that the 1st Appellant applied to the Commissioner for Lands, Survey and Town Planning on the 13th June 1980,

for a State land and was subsequently allocated piece of Land under a temporary Right of Occupancy (T.R.O), vide a letter No. MHE/LD/2446/134 of 20th March, 1981. The Land measuring 60 feet by 60 feet was for the construction of a temporary structure. The Temporary Right of Occupancy (TRO) was not to be transferable to a 3rd party by virtue of Section 4 (d) (1) of the Land Use Act Regulations (Amendment) Edit 1984.

The said Government land was gazette in Cross River State Legal Notice No. 124 of 8th May, 1980, No. 21 Vol 13. The 1st Appellant entered the said Land through the permit of the Chief Lands Officer in the Cross River State Ministry of Lands and Housing and built a restaurant thereon and handed over to her mother the 2nd Appellant to manage while she Joined her family in the

USA. The 2nd Appellant was at no time granted any right of Occupancy.

While on the property, the 1st Appellant defaulted in payment on the Temporary Right of Occupancy (TRO) which was to be paid on annual basis. The 1st Appellant defaulted in the payment of the fees for the piece of land from 1982 to 1991 when she brought the action.

The 2nd Respondent was not aware of the construction done on the piece of land nor was he aware of the destruction of any structure on the piece of land allocated to the 1st Appellant. At the lower Court, the Learned trial Judge refused to join the 2nd Respondent in his Ruling of 21st June, 2005.

However, the Learned trial Judge later went against that Ruling on the 18th May 2009 and joined the 2nd Respondent as a party in the case even though he was functus officio then.

Inspite of that, the Appellant could not establish /prove their claims at the lower Court, hence this appeal. Judgment was delivered in the case on the 12/10/09.

In arguing the appeal, the Appellant distilled 3 Issues for determination:

1. “Whether the trial Court violated the principle in the case of West African Breweries Ltd vs.

Savannah Ventures Ltd (2002) 10 NWLR (Pt 775) 401 and made finding of fact that could only made after leading evidence (covered in Grounds 1 and 5 of the appeal).

2. Whether in suo moto discrediting/ attacking Exhibit 3 tendered by the Appellant without objection from the Respondent who also led no evidence to contradict same, the trial Court was justified (covered by Ground 11).