Network Security Ltd V. Alhaji Umaru Dahiru & Ors (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MARY U. PETER-ODILI, J.C.A.

This appeal is against the decision of Honourable Justice O. Okeke delivered in the open court by Honourable Justice SW. Egbo-Egbo at Abuja on the 11th day of June 2003. The judgment granted the 1st respondent (the plaintiff in the court below) declaratory and injunctive reliefs against the Defendants and awarded the sum of five hundred thousand naira only (N500,000.00) damages against the 1st and 2nd Defendants (now 2nd and 3rd Respondents in this appeal) against this judgment, it is only the 4th Defendant in the court below that has appealed. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants have not appealed.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On the application by the plaintiff (now the 1st Respondent) the 1st Defendant (now 2nd Respondent) issued the plaintiff right of occupancy over plot NO.109 Wuse II, FCT Abuja covered by Certificate of Occupancy NO. FCT/ABU/BA.50 Exhibit ‘A’. The plaintiff in 1994 applied for approval of building plan and a letter conveying the approval for development. Exhibits B and C respectively.

While the plaintiff was carrying out the development of his plot NO. 109 Wuse II, the 2nd Defendant (now the 3rd Respondent) came and demolished the development put by the plaintiff and upon enquiring, the plaintiff discovered that his right of occupancy was revoked, hence the action in the suit NO.FHC/ABJ/C5/68/96.

The Plaintiff upon discovering that his plot was purportedly reallocated to the 3rd Defendant sought and obtained an order of court for the joinder and the 3rd Defendant was so joined.

The 4th Defendant (now the Appellant) almost two years after the action was filed in court applied and was joined as the 4th Defendant in the suit.

Pleadings were filed and exchanged between the 1st, 2nd and 4th Defendants with the Plaintiff, the 3rd Defendant notwithstanding service of Court process never showed up in court to defend the action.

The case of the 1st and 2nd Defendants was that they had by virtue of Section 28(5) paragraph (a) and (b) of the Land Use Decree NO.6 of 1978 revoked the plaintiff’s right. The 1st and 2nd Defendants statement of defence is found on pages 137 and 138 of the records.

The 1st and 2nd Defendants by their Statement of defence admitted allocating the plot of land under dispute to the plaintiff. They also admitted granting the plaintiff the approval for the development of the plot in 1994.

The issue in dispute between the plaintiff and the 1st and 2nd defendants was that while the 1st and 2nd Defendants purportedly revoked the right of the plaintiff under Section 28(5) paragraph (a) and (b) of the Land Use Act, the Plaintiff maintained that the revocation was in law ineffective as it was not legally done and as he was not in any breach. That the purported re-allocation of the same plot to the 3rd Defendant was also illegal and the subsequent sale of the plot by the 3rd Defendant to the 4th Defendant during the pendency of the suit was equally ineffective and illegal.

The Court after evidence was adduced in court gave judgment against the Defendants and granted declaratory and injunctive relief and against the Defendants having held that the revocation was ineffective and so the purported allocation of the plot to the 3rd Defendant was unlawful and that the doctrine of Lis pendens was applicable against the 4th Defendant. It is against that judgment that the 4th Defendant appealed to this court.

The Appellant through counsel filed a Brief of Argument on 10/3/04 and deemed filed on 14/12/04 formulated four issues for determination are :-

1. Whether the learned trial Judge rightly or wrongly applied the provisions of the Land Use Act to nullify the 2nd Respondents re-possession of the land in dispute from the 1st Respondent.
2. Whether having regard to the location of the land in dispute ie Federal Capital Territory Abuja, the provisions of the Land Use Act are applicable to the land in dispute and if applicable, whether the Act is not subject to the overriding express provisions of the Certificate of occupancy (Exhibit A) which formed the basis of contract between the 1st and 2nd Respondents.
3. Whether the learned trial Judge rightly invoked the doctrine of Lis pendens against the appellant and thereby rightly rejected the appellants defence of bona fide purchase for value without notice.
4. Whether having regard to all surrounding circumstances, learned trial Judge rightly granted declaration and injunction against the appellant The 1st Respondent in their Brief of Argument filed on 1/2/05 raised four issues viz:-
5. Whether the trial court was right in holding that the purported revocation of the plaintiff’s right of occupancy by the Respondent (2nd Defendant) was null and void under the provisions of the Land Use Act.
6. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the doctrine of Lis pendens had caught up with the appellant (4th Defendant at the trial court) the 4th Defendant having purportedly acquired interest in the property during the pendency of the suit.
7. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in granting the reliefs sought by the 1st Respondent (plaintiff at the trial court).
8. If the purported revocation was null and void, whether the 2nd and 3rd Respondents could re-allocate plot 109 Wuse II District, Abuja to 3rd Defendant from who the Appellant acquired interest in the plot.

The Appellant filed a Reply Brief to the 1st Respondent’s Brief which filing was done on the 12/5/05.