Sharika & Sons Ltd V. The Governor Of Kaduna State & Ors (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ABDU ABOKI JCA (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal is against the decision of the High Court, Kaduna State delivered on the 17th day of October, 2005, by A. A. Othman J.

The facts that gave rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff (hereinafter called the appellant) instituted an action before the lower Court challenging the purported revocation of the piece of land located along western bye-pass near Mando road junction that was allocated to it in 1987.

During the pendency of the said action before the lower Court, learned counsel to the 1st-4th respondent’s in this appeal filed an application challenging the competency of the said action.

The lower Court in a considered judgment dismissed the said action against all the respondents in this appeal for being statute barred.

Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant filed a notice of appeal containing 5 grounds of appeal.

Briefs of argument were in accordance with the relevant rules of this Court duly filed and exchanged and at the hearing of this appeal the parties duly adopted and relied on the arguments and submissions contained in their respective briefs.

The appellant’s brief of argument dated and filed on 20/12/2005 was settled by Garbiel Didam while 1st -4th respondents brief of argument dated 28/2/2006 and filed on 01/3/2006 was settled by Yunus Ustaz Usman (SAN) and 8th – 11th respondents’ brief of argument dated and filed on 26/3/2009 was settled by I. B. Odigie.

In the appellant’s brief of argument, the following issues for determination were raised :-

“i. Whether the Provisions of the Public Officers Protection Act are applicable in favour of the 1st – 4th respondents and moreso considering the nature of the dispute which is Land Recovery.

ii. Whether the trial Court was right in dismissing the suit it did not hear on the merit and also dismissing same in favour of the 11th respondents who are not public officers and who raise no preliminary objection to the competency of the suit.”

Learned counsel to the 1st -4th respondents in their joint brief of argument formulated the following issues for determination to wit:

“(i). Whether the Provisions of the Public Officers Protection Act are applicable in favour of the 1st -4th respondents (Grounds 1, 2 and 3 of the Appeal).

(ii). Whether the trial Court was right in dismissing the suit in its entirety (Grounds 4 and 5 of the Appeal).