Teri V. Augustine (2021)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

JAMES GAMBO ABUNDAGA, J.C.A. 

This is an appeal against the Judgment of High Court of Borno State in Suit No. BOHC/MG/CV/48/2017, delivered on 23/04/2019 by Hon. Justice B. Karumi.

In brief, the facts of the case is that the Appellant’s husband and the Respondent were both police officers who served at the Borno State Command of the Nigeria Police Force, Maiduguri. The case of the Respondent who was the claimant at the lower Court is that in 1981, himself and the Appellant’s husband were occupants of House No. B121 of Ibrahim Taiwo Housing Estate and were in quiet possession with their families for over 38 years. That the payment of rent was then done by the Police authorities until such payment was stopped by the then Inspector General of Police, Estem Eyame. That upon the aforesaid stoppage, the two of them sought the intervention of one Haruna (deceased) and one Mairo Ali (a former Asst. Commissioner of Police) to allow them to continue to occupy the premises and to pay the rent. That based on this intervention, the General Manager of the Housing Corporation which was in control of the Estate approved their request, and they therefore became co-owners with the Appellant’s husband to House No. B121. That with the approval, the General Manager asked that only one name be submitted, and that should be the name of the most senior of them, according to housing policy. That he was the most senior and therefore his name ought to be submitted but because he was out of town on special duty, the name of the Appellant’s husband was submitted. It is also the case of the Respondent that when in 2003 the houses were sold on owner-occupier basis, he and the Appellant’s husband contributed N5000 to pay for the processing form, and when the house was sold at N720,000.00 he made the payments in two instalments because his colleague said he had no money. That he had to make the payments in order to avoid losing the house, and on the understanding that his colleague would later refund the half which represents his own amount for the house. That upon payment, the deed of Assignment bearing his colleague’s name was released to him. However, when his colleague upon further payment of additional money to the Housing authority requested for title document, he was turned down, and the deed of assignment was not released to him by the Housing authority. That without his knowledge, his colleague (the appellant) went to Court against the housing authority and got Judgment in his favour. It is upon these facts that the Respondent went to Court also against the Appellant’s husband praying for the following reliefs:

a. Declaration that both claimant and the defendant are co and lawful owners of the house No. B121 Ibrahim Taiwo Housing Estate.

b. An order restraining the defendant or whosoever from claiming the sole ownership of the house excluding the claimant’s co – rights and ownership over the property.

c. An order directing the defendant to refund N360,000 (Three Hundred and Sixty Thousand Naira) being half of the amount paid by the claimant to housing authority.

d. Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant by himself or privies, agent or servant from trespass into his own portion of the house.

​On the other hand the case of the Appellant’s husband is that there was never any agreement that the most senior officer’s name should be submitted to the housing corporation for registration. That sometimes in 1986, when applications were being made for these houses as tenants in the Estate, the Respondent showed no interest when he told him that they should apply. That he then applied in 1986 to the Housing Corporation and got approval and was given an offer. It is also his case that he only granted the Respondent’s request that he allowed his family stay in the house as he would soon go on transfer since they were colleagues. That since 1986, when he was offered the house he was paying the rent personally to the Housing Corporation except when he would not be around, the money was given to the Respondent to pay for him. It is further his case that he applied for and was offered the house for sale by Borno State Government through the Ministry of Housing and Environment on its policy of owner/occupier basis on 16/5/2003 at the price of N720,000 which he paid for in 6 instalments. That he also paid for the deed of assignment but was not given as he was told that it was not ready. That when he went later to collect it, he was told that it had been collected by somebody whose name the Ministry refused to disclose to him. It is also his case that after repeated demands for the title deed without positive result from the Ministry he sued the Ministry for it, and Judgment was given in his favour and the Ministry was therefore ordered to execute the deed of assignment in his favour.

The Respondent’s case is encapsulated in his 20 paragraph amended statement of claim, while the Appellant’s case is as contained in his 20 paragraph amended statement of defence.

In the trial, the Respondent testified and called one witness by name Mairo Ali. Three documents were tendered and admitted in evidence. The Appellant testified in his defence and also tendered nine documents which were admitted in evidence. One other document was tendered from the bar and admitted in evidence bringing to ten documents tendered and admitted in evidence at the instance of the Appellant.

All witnesses for both the Appellant and Respondent testified by adopting the witness statements on oath of the witnesses.

At the close of the trial, parties filed and exchanged final written addresses which they subsequently adopted.

In the Judgment, the trial Court gave Judgment in favour of the Respondent. Not satisfied with it, the Appellant appealed to this Court through the Notice of Appeal filed on 23/05/2019. The Notice of Appeal contains five grounds of appeal inclusive of the omnibus ground of appeal. However, he sought no relief in his Notice of Appeal.

The Record of Appeal duly complied and transmitted, parties filed their respective briefs of argument.