Rumugu Air And Space Nigeria Limited V. Federal Airports Authority Of Nigeria & Anor (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

SIDI DAUDA BAGE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the decision of the Honourable Justice T.A.O. Oyekan Abdullai sitting at the Lagos High Court delivered on the 20th day of May 2009 upon an application by the Appellant/Applicant for the enforcement of its fundamental right to acquire and own moveable immovable property, guaranteed by Sections 43 and 44 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 wherein judgment was given against the Appellant refusing its prayers, as the action ought not to have been commenced under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, but by writ of summons and statement of claim to enable parties state their respective claims.

The Appellant at the lower Court filed a motion on notice dated 19th May 2006 pursuant to the provisions of Section 46 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 1979 for the enforcement of the Appellant’s Fundamental Rights to acquire and own immovable property anywhere in Nigeria, guaranteed by Sections 43 and 44 of the Constitution of the Federal

1

Republic of Nigeria 1999.

The reliefs sought by the Applicant are for:

i. N96,046,218.00 (Ninety Six Million, Forty Six Thousand, Two Hundred and Eighteen Naira) general aggravated and exemplary damages for forcible entry and trespass and violation of Appellant’s Fundamental Rights to the property in respect to its leasehold property situate at General Airport Terminal II, Murtala Muhammed International Airport, guaranteed by Section 43 and 44 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.

ii. An injunction restraining the Respondents, their servants and, or agents from committing further acts of trespass on the disputed land.

iii. An order restraining the Respondents, their servants and or agents from preventing the Appellant/Applicant, its customers and clients from entering upon the said disputed land and issuing to the Appellant/Applicant, its servants, agents and customers all necessary permits to enter and leave the disputed property.

iv. A mandatory order directing the Respondents to restore to the said disputed property, all portakabins, office units and other installations of the

2

Appellant/Applicant’s customers and agents removed or caused by the Appellant/Applicant to be removed from the said disputed property.

The 1st Respondent’s case is s follows:

i. That the originating processes in this suit were properly served on the 1st Respondent.