Star Paper Mill Ltd & Anor V. Bashiru Adetunji & Ors (2009)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

S. MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE, J.S.C

This appeal involves the determination of whether the court of appeal, hereinafter called the lower court, was right in striking out an appeal, when the parties have amicably resolved the dispute between them and filed terms of settlement before the court.

The plaintiffs who are the respondents before this court claimed before the High Court of Justice, Lagos among others, declaration that the lease granted in favour of Late Chief Ole Kanu Oko by Alhaji Bismyu Lawal dated 14/8/1995 and registered as No 73 at page 73 in volume 1576 of the Land Registry, Lagos over a parcel of land situate, lying and being at 210 Ogungbesan Street Coker Village Iganmu and measuring one acre has been determined by reason of forfeiture.

Both parties filed and exchanged pleadings and called witnesses in support of their case. The trial Judge, after listening to both parties delivered his judgment in favour of the plaintiffs, and granted all the claims. The trial High Court held thus:-

“In the totality of evidence adduced by the plaintiffs and Defendants, this court finds as a fact that it has to declare that the lease granted in favour of Late Chief Ole Kalu Oko, by Alhaji Bisiriyu Lawal in respect of the said land had been, determined by reason of forfeiture for failure to pay rent which law require no statutory Notice before taking action for forfeiture in accordance with conveyance Act 1881 which is still applicable in Nigeria. Consequently, all the rights, interest and title in the said property has accordingly reverted back to the plaintiff’s family who are entitled to possession of the same.

With respect to counter-claim filed by the Defendants, there is no iota of evidence adduced to sustain the averments on the counter-claim, there is clear evidence of breach of the lease Agreement dated 14th of August, 1976 and of which, forfeiture of the lease was firmly supported by this court. Copies of statutory notices were served on the Defendant, even though not necessary, but they failed to find remedy to the breach within the period of 30 days given by the plaintiffs.

A declaration that the purported sublease in favour of the 1st defendant company is null and void as there was no document tendered to show any sublease to Defendants by anybody, whereas interest on land in law has to be in writing, if there is any at all, this could have been tendered, it is therefore resumed, if the document showing interest of the Defendants were tendered, this would be against the Defendants. Section 14 Evidence law refers).

As there was no document tendered by the Defendants for their holding of the said land in dispute, the Defendants could be rightly adjudged a trespasser ab initio.

The Defendants are in fact adjudged as trespassers on the land m dispute.

Therefore, it would be justified to order a perpetual injunction against the Defendants jointly and severally, their servants, agents and or privies from committing, any further acts of trespass on, the said land.

The counter-claimed filed by the Defendants is frivolous, and it is therefore dismissed”. See pp 126- 127 of the Record.

Being dissatisfied with trial court’s judgment, as stated above, the Defendants, appealed to the lower court. At the lower court the appellants filed their brief of argument. Before the respondents could file the respondents brief of argument, the parties have agreed to resolve the matter amicably, as a result of which a terms of settlement was filed before the lower court. The terms of settlement are reproduced hereunder:

TERMS OF SETTLEMENT

“The parties herein have mutually agreed to settle the dispute herein as follows:-