Registered Trustees Of The Christ Faith Mission & Ors V. Revd. Daniel Egbefah Akugha (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the decision of the Delta State High Court, Warri Judicial Division in Suit No. W/254/2002. In an amended Statement of Claim dated 16th September, 2002, the Appellants, as Plaintiffs sought for the following reliefs against the respondent, as the defendant. They are: –

“1. A DECLARATION that the premises known as No. 52 Okoro Street, Off 1st Marine Gate, Warri, is and should remain the property of The Christ Faith Mission, Warri. And that the church is entitled to a declaration of statutory right of occupancy over the aforesaid land and the improvements thereon.

2. AN ORDER OF perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, his servants, privies and/or agents from continuing his trespass and/or further trespassing into 1st Plaintiff’s Church premises situate at No. 52, Okoro Street, Off 1st Marine Gate, Warri.
3. AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining of Defendant his servants, privies and/or agents from further arresting.

Intimidating and/or detaining the Plaintiffs or their church members maliciously and unlawfully.

4. N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) being general and special damages for the acts of trespass on 1st Plaintiffs said church premises.
5. AN ORDER restoring or replacing every property/items removed or destroyed by the Defendant in the cause of his continued trespass/invasion of 1st plaintiffs church premises aforementioned.
6. N10,000,000.00 {Ten Million Naira} being damages for (i) malicious, unwarranted and unlawful arrest and detention of the Plaintiffs and other members of the church from the 24th to 26th September, 2002 at “A’ Division, Nigeria Police Force, Warri (b) punitive, aggravated/exemplary damages.”

The Respondent herein filed a defence to this claim by way of a Statement of Defence as well as a Counter-claim dated 6th November, 2003. The Appellants filed a reply to the Statement of defence and a defence to the Counter-claim. Issues now having been fully joined, the matter went to trial on 10th May, 2004. In the course of the proceedings of 10th May, 2004, the case of the Plaintiffs against the defendant opened with the testimony of the 2nd Plaintiff as PW1. In the course of the oral evidence of PW1 some cash receipts were also tendered and admitted in evidence, despite the objections of learned Counsel to the defendant/respondent. At the end of her oral evidence, PW1 was put up for cross examination. However, not too far into the cross examination, the Court saw good reason to adjourn the proceedings to 25th May, 2004 for continuation of hearing.

On the 25th May, 2004, when the matter was called for continuation of hearing, the 2nd, 3rd and 5th Plaintiffs as well as the defendant were physically present in Court, while their respective counsel were absent. Learned Counsel to the defendant, Mr. O. A. Okpukpor wrote a letter of apology for his inability to be in Court that day. He gave the reason for his absence as his being involved with matters before the Delta State Local Government Election Petition Tribunal coming up for hearing that day. He also sought for an adjournment, subject to the Court’s convenience to either 4/6/04, 16/6/04 or 18/6/04.

The learned trial judge was not satisfied with the application for adjournment. He invited the Plaintiffs to proceed with the case. When the plaintiffs showed an unwillingness to continue, the learned trial judge went ahead to dismiss the action. The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the order dismissing their action. They therefore filed this appeal on the following 3 grounds of appeal; VIZ:

1. The trial court erred in law in dismissing the suit of the Plaintiff.

PARTICULARS

i. The 2nd Plaintiff had fully testified in the suit before the law court on every single paragraph of the statement of claim.

ii. The trial court did not consider the evidence on record to determine whether same could have sustained the claim of the Plaintiff.

iii. The judgment of the trial court is perverse as the claim of the Plaintiffs was well established before the court below.

2. The trial Court erred in law when it proceeded with the suit on 25/5/2004 in the absence of both counsel to plaintiff and counsel for defendant.

PARTICULARS

i. Counsel for defendant had written to court asking for adjournment of the suit to another date.

ii. The said letter of adjournment was brought to the knowledge of the counsel for plaintiffs who also was not present in court presumably on the assumption that the trial court will adjourn the suit based on the letter for adjournment of counsel for the defendant.