Rahamaniyya United Nig. Ltd. V. Ministry for Federal Capital Territory & Ors. (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ABDU ABOKI, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the Ruling of the Federal High Court, Abuja delivered by A. I. Chikere J. on the 4th day of March, 2005.

The facts of the case are briefly stated as follows; The Plaintiff/Appellant claimed to have been given a letter of offer otherwise called a letter of Grant/Conveyance of approval dated 4th January, 1995 for Plot Nos, 216, 217, 218, 219, 225, 226, 227 and 228 within Wuye District, Abuja. The Plaintiff/Appellant also claimed that he wrote a letter of acceptance to that offer and forwarded it to the 2nd Respondent but could not commence any meaningful development on the plots because infrastructures were not yet in place. However, on site inspection of the plots on 18th October 2000, the Appellant’s Solicitors and staff discovered that the 4th Respondent have taken possession of a part of the plots and were digging foundation with the intention of commencing development. Thereafter, the Plaintiff/Appellant instituted this action at the trial Court challenging the validity of the allocation of the plots to the 4th Respondent by the 1st- 3rd Respondents.

The 1st-3rd Respondents raised a preliminary objection to the hearing of the suit on the ground that it is statute barred under Section 2(a) Public Officers Protection Act, Cap 379 LFN 1990 since the Plaintiff/Appellant’s cause of action arose on 18th October 2000 when he discovered that the plots were encroached. The Preliminary objection was upheld by the learned trial Judge.

The Plaintiff/Appellant being dissatisfied with the Ruling of the trial Court appealed to this Court. The Appellant’s Brief of Argument was dated and filed on the 14th day of August 2006, while the Respondent’s Brief of Argument dated the 24th day of October, 2007 was filed on 26th October 2007. The Appellant’s Reply Brief was filed on the 18th day of March, 2008.

The Appellant from his three Grounds of Appeal distilled five issues for determination in this Appeal as follows:

“1. Whether or not the learned trial judge was right to hold that the wrongful act of the 1st-3rd Respondents occurred on the 18th October 2000 and completed on the same date when the Respondents did not place any fact before the Court to justify this finding.

2. Whether the provisions o/Section 28(6) & (7) o/the Land Use Act Cap 202 Laws of the Federation 1990 and or Section 44(1) of 1999 Constitution envisage an indirect revocation or withdrawal of a citizen’s title to land. In other words, whether a citizen’s title to land can be revoked without a notice first made in writing and sent to such citizen before the same subsisting allocation is given to another person.
3. And if the answer to question No.2 is in the affirmative, whether non compliance with the provisions of Section 28(6) & (7) of the Land Use Act and or violation a/Section 44(1) of 1999 Constitution by a public officer as in the instant case, the 1st-3rd Respondents does not amount to abuse of office or violation of statutory duties sufficient enough to rob off them the protection offered by Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act Cap 379 Laws of the Federation 1990.
4. Whether or not the learned trial judge was bound to consider the date when the event giving rise to the cause of action came to the knowledge of the Appellant in the determination or calculation of the mandatory 3 months period for the purpose of ascertaining whether a public officer is protected by Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act or not.
5. What is the nature of the relationship between the Appellant and the Respondent?”

The Respondents on their part formulated a lone issue for determination and it is adumbrated as follows:

“Whether this action is maintainable against the 1st-3rd Respondents in view of the provisions of Section 2(a) Public Officers Protection Act, Cap 379, LFN 1990.”

After a careful perusal of the issues raised by the parties for determination in this Appeal, I observe that five (5) issues were formulated or distilled from the three (3) grounds of Appeal filed by the Appellant. It is most improper in law for a party to distil more issues than the grounds of Appeal filed. See:

Adedipe v. Theophilus (2005) 16 NWLR Pt. 951 page 250 at 261;

Kalu v. Ohuabunwa (2004) 7 NWLR Pt. 871 page 1;

UBA Ltd. v. Mode (Nig.) Ltd. (2001) 13 NWLR Pt. 730 page 335;

Iweka v. SCOA (2000) 7 NWLR Pt. 664 page 325.