Okoroma & Anor V. Chief Christian Uba & Ors (1998)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

UBAEZONU, J.C.A.

The 1st respondent Chief Christian Uba, commenced a proceeding under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 1979 against the appellants, Dr. Okoroma and Mrs. Okoroma at the Federal High Court Enugu. The other respondents are police officers who were joined in the suit. The reliefs sought against the respondents were:

“(i) Declaration that the applicant’s right of way or easement and profits unto or over the open space adjoining: plot H3 New Haven East Layout, Enugu is appurtenant to the properly right in respect of the premises situate and known as Plot H3 New Haven East Layout. Enugu

(ii) Declaration that the conduct of the respondents in estopping and/or preventing the applicant from reaping or enjoying profits appurtenant to the said plot H3 and ingress and egress over and unto the open space adjoining the said plot H3 constitutes violation of sections 38 and 40 of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979.

(iii) N1,000,000,00 (one million naira) from 1st and 2nd respondents being special and exemplary and/or aggravated damages for infringement of applicant’s fundamental rights.

(iv) Perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in any manner whatsoever with the applicant’s ingress and egress and peaceable use and enjoyment of easement or right of way and profits over and in respect of plot H3 New Haven East Layout, Enugu.”

By a motion ex-parte for leave to apply to enforce his fundamental human rights under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 1979 the 1st respondent applied for and obtained the said leave. In addition, the 1st respondent also obtained an order for:

“(b) an interim injunction restraining the respondents, their servants, agents, privies or workmen from interfering in any manner whatsoever with the applicant’s ingress and egress and peaceable use and enjoyment of easement and profits appurtenant to plot H3 New Haven East Layout, Enugu (verged red in Plan No. DRG E/79) pending the determination of the substantive application.

(c) An interim order staying all matters by the respondents, their servants, agents, privies or workmen connected with the applicant’s peaceable use and enjoyment of profits and of right of way or easement appurtenant to Plot H3 New Haven East Layout, Enugu pending the determination of the substantive application.”

The ex-parte order was apparently not served on the appellants but they obtained a copy of the order. The appellants thereupon filed a motion on notice to set aside the ex-parte order and to strike out the suit on the ground that the Federal High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit since the suit was essentially a land dispute between two private individuals. The motion was heard. On the 12th March, 1997 the court, presided over by Kassim J” delivered its ruling and held that it had the jurisdiction. Against this ruling, the appellants have come to this court on appeal.

In view of the 1st respondent’s contention that some of the issues formulated by the appellants do not flow from the grounds of appeal, I shall set out hereunder the grounds of appeal without the particulars. They are:

“(i) GROUND ONE – ERROR IN LAW

The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that the Federal High Court, has jurisdiction to deal with land matters between private individuals.

GROUND TWO – ERROR IN LAW