Raliatu Musa Aigoro V. Commissioner Of Lands And Housing, Kwara State (2011)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

SOTONYE DENTON WEST, JCA (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal stems from the ruling of Honourable Justice H.A Saleeman of the Kwara state High Court of justice, Ilorin Division which was delivered on 24/02/2009. The trial court in her wisdom struck out the appellant’s suit. The appellant felt discontented, hence, this Appeal.

The Appellant vide a Fundamental Enforcement Rule sought for redress for the violation of the Appellant’s principal fundamental right to compensation. The Appellant sought for the following reliefs at the lower court, as follows;

i. A DECLARATION that the acquisition of the applicant’s principal’s land by the Kwara state Government without paying compensation to the principal.

violates the principal’s fundamental right to compensation for the loss of the land to the state government IN THE ALTERNATIVE, A DECLARATION that the acquisition of the applicant’s principal’s land by the Kwara state Government is a nullity for want of payment of compensation to the principal.

ii. AN AWARD of N300,000.00k as the overt market value of one plot of the applicant’s principals land measuring 100ft x 50ft being at Quarry area of Sango, Ilorin as at the year 2007;

IN THE ALTERNATIVE, AN AWARD of general or nominal exemplary damages of N500,00.00k for acquiring the applicant’s principal’s land by the Kwara state Government without paying compensation to the principal.

iii. AN AWARD of interest at the bank rate of 21% per annum for delay in paying compensation to the applicant’s principal from 12th September, 2007 till the final payment of the compensation to the principal.

iv. AN AWARD of N 99,000.00k against the Kwara state Government for loss of the reserved 99 years of deemed right of occupancy of the applicant’s principal.

And same was supported with a 26-paragraph Affidavit deposed to by one Abdul Mumuni. The Respondent, that is, the commissioner for lands in Kwara state never appeared to defend the suit, despite proof that they were served.

The appellant filed eight grounds of appeal on 1st day of JUNE 2011, the Appellant’s counsel, A.A Ibrahim adopted his brief of argument dated 25th day of August and fifed 1st of September 2010. The Respondent was served but did not reply or file any other process. The Appellant formulated five (5) issues for determination thus;

1. whether, by the constitutional time limit, a nullity and a miscarriage of justice have occurred in the Ruling Appealed against which was delivered by the trial judge post 90 days of conclusion of the trial.
2. Whether, by the procedure adopted by the trial judge, the issues of propriety of endorsing the Appellant’s capacity of Attorney after the name of his principle and the issue of the propriety of instituting fundamental rights proceedings in the matter of money had and received by the Gobir family were raised and determination suo motu by the trial court. (Ground of Appeal No 2 and 3)
3. Whether, by the adversary system of justice in Nigeria, the trial judge has made out a different case of money had and received by the Gobir family as well as a case of fiduciary relation of the said family arising from the inchoate ownership of the land in question by the Appellant’s principle where the Appellant presented a case of claim of compensation for respondent’s compulsory acquisition of the land in question to the trial court(Grounds of Appeal No 4, 6 and 7)
4. Whether, from the evidence before the court, the trial judges, decision that the appellant’s fundamental right proceeding before it, was inappropriate is a perverse decision. (Ground of Appeal No 5)
5. Whether, the trial court’s observation that it called for further address from the parties before it on the issue of propriety of the agent suing for his principal did not affect its decisions that the suit of this Appeal be amended. (Ground of Appeal No.5).

Before proceeding to resolve the issues, the appeal was heard only on the appellant’s brief who had earlier applied to do so before the court The resolution of the Appeal shall be based on the Appellant’s issues alone as formulated, as the Respondent never filed any brief.

1. ISSUE 1

whether, by the constitutional time limit, a nullity and a miscarriage of justice have occurred in the Ruling Appealed against which was delivered by the trial judge post 90 days of conclusion of the trial.

The Appellant argued that the Ruling in this matter was delivered 34 days beyond the 90 days time limit for delivery of Ruling or judgment vide section 294(1) of the 1999 constitution of the federal Republic of Nigeria herein referred to as the constitution’ that the Ruling ought to be delivered on 24/2/2009 and not 24/2/2009 when the Ruling was delivered. The Appellant’s counsel thereafter submitted that, the Ruling delivered after the stipulated 90 days should be declared null and void, he referred this court to the case of ODI v. OSAFILE (1985) 1 NWLR pt. 1 pg73 at 78 to buttress his argument.