P.N. Udoh Trading Company Ltd V Sunday Abere & Anor (2001)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

KALGO, J.S.C. 

The appellant who was the plaintiff at the trial court (Rivers State High Court, Port Harcourt) claimed against the respondents jointly and severally the following reliefs:

1. A declaration that the reacquisition by the Government of the Rivers State of Nigeria of which the 2nd defendant is the legal Representative, and resale to the 1st defendant of the plaintiff’s property known as plot 3 within Station Road Layout otherwise and called Number 3 Station Road, Port Harcourt the subject-matter of the Deed dated the 8th day of September, 1958 and registered as No. 56 at page 56 in volume 181 of the Deeds Registry in the office at Enugu flow at Port Harcourt is illegal, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
2. N100,000.00 (One hundred thousand Naira) damages for trespass in that in March 1986 and all diverse other dates, the defendants by themselves, their servants and/or agents forcibly broke and entered the plaintiff’s said property called Number 3 Station Road, PortHarcourt and disturbed the plaintiffs possession thereof against its wish.
3. A perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their servants and/or agents from further trespass to the plaintiffs property known as plot 3 within Station Road layout otherwise called Number 3 Station Road, PortHarcourt.
4. An Order setting aside and/or bringing forward for cancellation the Deed dated the 17th day of July, 1978 registered as No. 78 at page 78 in volume 72 of the Deeds Registry in the office at Port Harcourt by which the Government of Rivers, State of Nigeria purported to have sold number 3 Station Road to the 1st defendant.
5. A declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to Statutory Certificate of Occupancy ill respect of the property known as plot 3 within Station Road Layout otherwise called number 3 Station Road, PortHarcourt the subject -matter of a Deed dated the 8th day of September, 1958 registered as No. 56 at page 56 in Volume 181 of the Deeds Registry now at Port Harcourt.
6. As against the 1st defendant only: an account of all rents and monies collected by the 1st defendant from the plaintiff’s tenants living in the property Number 3 Station Road, Port Harcourt without the plaintiff’s consent and payment of such rents and monies to the plaintiff.
7. As against the 2nd defendant: all order of the honourable Court compelling the Government a/Rivers State of Nigeria to execute all relevant Title Deeds and/or Statutory Certificate of Occupancy in respect of or touching Number 3 Station Road, Port Harcourt.

Pleadings were ordered, filed and exchanged between the parties. Parties then called witnesses at the trial to prove their respective cases in accordance with their pleadings. At the end of the trial, counsel for the parties addressed the Court and the case was adjourned for judgment. On the 20th of July 1992, the learned trial Judge Ichoku J. delivered a considered judgment in which he dismissed the whole claim of the plaintiff/appellant. Dissatisfied with this decision, he appealed to the Court of Appeal, which after hearing the appeal also dismissed it. He now appealed to this court.

In this court, the appellant formulated the following issues for determination:

(i) Whether having regard to the state of the pleadings and the evidence adduced at the trial, the Court of Appeal was right when it affirmed the judgment of the Court of first instance to the effect that the appellant’s suit was statute-barred.

(ii) Whether the Court(of Appeal) below was right when it affirmed the decision of the court of first instance to the effect that the property in question was an abandoned property within the context and intendment of section 2 of the Abandoned Property (Custody and Management) Edict No.8 of 1969 of Rivers State of Nigeria.

(iii) Whether, even if the property in question was an abandoned property there was a valid sale of it to the first respondent under the provisions of the Abandoned Property Decree No. 90 of 1970 so as to invoke the ouster clause contained in the said Decree.

(iv) Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it held that the Supreme Court’s decision in Peenok Investment Ltd. v. Hotel Presidential Ltd. (1982) 12 SC 1, (1983) 4 NCLR 122 notwithstanding, the purported cancellation of the appellant’s Deed of Lease under the provisions of the State lands (Cancellation of Lease) Edict No. 15 of 1972, as Amended, was in the circumstance of this case valid.

(v) Whether the Court (of Appeal) below was right when it held that the appellant, as Plaintiff at the Court of first instance, did not challenge cancellation of its Lease at the trial and did not appeal against the finding of the Court of first instance on the question of such non-challenge.

(vi) Assuming the purported sale of the property in question and the purported cancellation of the appellant’s Lease to be valid, whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the appellant had a duty to apply to a court to set aside the sale or the cancellation.

The 1st respondent also raised 6 issues which read:

Issue I

WHETHER THE ACTION IS STATUTE BARRED

Issue II