Tennyson Ajie & Ors V. Cyprian Ahunanya & Ors (2000)
LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report
OGEBE, J.C.A.
The Appellants sued the Respondents in the High Court of Port Harcourt presided over by Odili, J., claiming 500,000.00 damages for trespass and seeking an order of perpetual injunction restraining them from further acts of trespass.
The Respondents counter-claimed in the sum of N22,500.00 as special damages for destroying the 1st Respondent’s property, N500,000.00 damages for trespass to the property of the 1st respondent situate at No. 26 Rumusele Street, Port Harcourt and perpetual injunction restraining the Appellants from further acts of trespass.
Some of the Appellants gave evidence that they were tenants in the disputed property when sometime in 1991 the 1st Respondent along with the other respondents came and forcefully removed their properties from the rooms they were occupying.
They testified that at the time of the removal of their properties they were not paying rents on the property to anybody. They were earlier paying rents to one Mr. J. O. Chikelue who put them in the property, but when they discovered that the property did not belong to him but to one Mr. Kenneth Ejiofor, they stopped paying rents to Mr. Chikelue.
The 1st Respondent and the other Respondents denied forcefully removing the properties of the Appellants from the disputed house. The 1st Respondent testified that he bought the property from Mr. Chikelue and was formally introduced to the tenants as the new landlord. All the tenants left except the Appellants who were reluctant to go. The 1st Respondent sometime in 1991 decided to carry out renovations on the property and that was what brought about this dispute.
The Appellants damaged some of the doors and refused to vacate the property. He was therefore suing for trespass and damage to his property. He tendered a deed of conveyance to show that he paid some money to buy the property.
The trial Judge dismissed the Appellants’ claim and granted the Respondents’ counter-claim. It is against that decision that the Appellants have appealed to this Court.
The learned Counsel for the Appellants filed a brief on their behalf and formulated one issue for determination as follows:-
“Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the defendants/counter-claimants rather than the plaintiffs, proved a case of trespass and injunction?.”
The Respondents also filed a brief of argument and formulated one issue for determination as follows:
“Whether the learned trial Judge rightly found the plaintiffs/appellants to be trespassers?.”
The learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted in their brief that, the Appellants clearly proved acts of trespass against the Respondents who packed their properties out of their rooms without their consent and that the trial Court was wrong in dismissing their claim. They also argued that the 1st Respondent did not prove proper title to the property and was not entitled to judgment under his counter-claim.
In reply, the learned Counsel to the Respondent submitted that the 1st Respondent bought the property and was put in possession. He asked the Appellants to vacate but rather than do so they damaged the property. The learned Counsel argued that a tenant cannot question the proprietary right of his landlord.
The Appellants were paying rents to Mr. J. O. Chikelue who then sold the property to the 1st Respondent. They cannot challenge the proprietary right of the 1st Respondent. He relied on the case of Olurunkoje v. Rokosu & Anor. 20 NLR 118. The Appellants filed reply brief in answer to the Respondents’ brief. The substance of the argument in the reply brief was that the 1st Respondent failed to prove a better title to the property in dispute.
I have given very serious thoughts to the submissions of counsel on both sides and I have read the record of appeal scrupulously. It is beyond dispute that the Appellants were tenants in the disputed property and were paying rents to one Mr. J. O. Chikelue who sold the property to the 1st Respondent. According to the Appellant, they were paying rent to Mr Chikelue until they found out that the property belonged to one Kenneth Ejiofor.
Kenneth Ejiofor was not called by the Appellants to prove that he was the owner of the property and was interested in the action. The Appellants did not even know him. They claimed that he sent his agents to them but they did not call any of the agents as a witness. They did not call the name of any of the agents.
At the time of this action, the Appellants were not paying rents to anybody. It would appear that from the time they stopped paying rents on the property they ceased to be proper tenants in possession of the property. They were merely squatters on the property. They were not in possession to be entitled to sue in trespass.
There was evidence that the 1st Respondent bought the property from J. O. Chikelue. The deed of conveyance and power of attorney tendered by the 1st Respondent were not enough to prove title to the property but at least the deed of conveyance was evidence of purchase receipt which gave the 1st respondent equitable interest in the property. It follows therefore that as between the 1st Respondent who had an equitable interest on the property and the Appellants who were mere squatters, the 1st Respondent had a better claim to the property than the appellants and the trial Court was rights based on the evidence before it to dismiss the Appellants’ claim and grant the Respondents’ counter-claim.
It is trite law that a tenant cannot question the proprietary right of his landlord. In this case, the Appellants were not proper tenants but squatters. They have no business in challenging the proprietary right of the 1st Respondent. The only persons who can challenge the right of the 1st Respondent to the property are Mr. J. O. Chikelue or Mr. Kenneth Ejiofor and both of them are not parties to this suit. See the cases of Olorunkoje v. Rokosu & Anor. 20 NLR 118 and Alabi v. Adeniji (1962) 2 All NLR 47.
In the result, I see no merit in this appeal and I dismiss it and affirm the decision of the trial Court. The Appellants shall pay costs of N5,000.00 to the Respondents.
Other Citations: (2000)LCN/0821(CA)