Skyblind (Nig) Ltd V. New Life Cooperative Society Ltd & Ors (2021)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

MUSA DAITIJO MUHAMMAD, J.S.C. 

The appellant herein, as plaintiff, commenced suit No. KDH/KAD/117/2010 against the respondents, the defendants, at the High Court of Kaduna State for:-

“(i) A declaration that the act of the defendants constitutes trespass and continuous trespass against the plaintiff.

(ii) An order of injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, employers and any other person(s) from obstructing or further obstructing, blocking, entering without consent, and interfering with the plaintiff’s use and occupation of the property consisting of the ground floor and all its appurtenances situate and lying at plot L5, Ahmadu Bello Way Kaduna which the plaintiff holds and occupies as a lawful tenant of the defendants.

(iii) N6 million only as general damages and

(iv) Cost of instituting the action”.

The respondents not only contested appellant’s claim, they counter-claimed thus:-

“a. A Declaration that the 1st Defendant is entitled to immediate, exclusive and outright possessions of the property situate, lying and being at plot No. L5 Ahmadu Bello Way Kaduna covered by certificate of Occupancy No. KD5155, dated 26th June 1998 and Registered as No. 16 at page 16 in volume 83 (Certificate of Occupancy) of the Kaduna State Land Registry Kaduna having lawfully purchase same from ALHAJI GIDADO IDRIS (the former owner) on 18/09/1009.

b. A Declaration that the Plaintiff is a tenant at sufferance and a Trespasser in the premises.

c. A CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER of this Honourable Court ejecting the Plaintiff forthwith from the 1st Defendant’s property or premises known situate, lying and being at plot No. L5 Ahmadu Bello Way Kaduna.

d. AND for such further order(s) as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this case.”

Pleadings were ordered, filed and exchanged. The respondents particularly averred and led evidence that appellant is seeking to relitigate the very claim heard and determined by the Federal High Court in suit No. FHC/KD/CS/33/2010 between the appellant’s Managing Director, as plaintiff, against the police and the 3rd to 5th respondents as defendants.

​In its judgment at the end of trial, see page 147 of the record of appeal, the trial Court inter-alia held:

“Appellant’s claims have been a subject of previously concluded litigation and cannot be relitigated … the claim is incompetent while the defendants’ counter-claim is undefended and granted…” (Underlining supplied for emphasis).