Toyin Adegbesan V. Registered Trustees Of Church Of Mercy Gospel Mission & Ors (2012)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MOHAMMED A. DANJUMA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

At the trial court, the 1st Respondent as plaintiffs had claimed that in 1981 – a grant by one Alhaji Moshood Alado Adams (deceased) of property at No.34, Aladelola Street, Ketu Lagos to build a place of worship was made to them; That a worship place and offices/stores were erected thereon and possession since then had been taken. That the plaintiff gave a small portion to 1st Defendant who erected his welding workshop thereon, being a worshiper and member of the plaintiff’s church then.

The 1st Defendant then refused to remove his temporary structure even after ceasing to attend his worship with the plaintiffs.

In 1998, a public Notice by DEBO AKANDE (SAN) that the plaintiff’s property was the family property of T. L. IGINIA Family was posted on the plaintiff’s said property.

Investigations showed that the property had by the judgment in suit No. IK/170/71 MRS H. A. SHITTA & ORS. VS. OLA OLU TAIWO been adjudged as being on the land belonging to the said IGINIA family; whereupon a purchase of same was made by the said plaintiffs after negotiations through their solicitors CHIEF DEBO AKANDE.

The 1st Defendant trespassed thereon, relying on assignment of same property to him in 1993.

That 1st Defendant defaced the wall and posted several defamatory materials on the wall, erected structures and prevented the plaintiffs from using the premises and in such manner and even against police advise; that he was prosecuted at a magistrate court.

2nd and 3rd Defendants denied the claim and by their joint statement of defence at the trial averred that the 1st Defendant had applied for the ratification of his title to the land and relied on purchase receipt and documents of assignment; that the plaintiff who had protested to them in respect of the application produced no proof of ownership as asserted.

The 1st Defendant averred by his amended statement of Defence that the Lagos State High Court at the suit No. ID/2366/98 had on 20th February, 2001 decided that the plaintiff had no locus standi to institute any action in respect thereof. That the plaintiff was, thereby estopped from instituting the suit. See Amended Statement of defence pursuant to the Order of the Court dated 4th February, 2004 contained at page 10 of the record of proceedings.

At the trial, the plaintiff however, insisted that the said land was validly vested in them as the purported defence that the land had been compulsorily acquired by the Government of Lagos State had no basis; That any acquisition if any had failed as it was not for overriding public purpose thus leaving extant their valid title acquired over the land. Before the hearing on the pleadings, the Appellants herein, by motion on notice dated 16th May of September, 2004 and filed on 27/9/04 moved the Honourable trial court in his capacity as 1st Defendant/Applicant for an order striking the suit for lack of locus standi of the claimant and want of jurisdiction of the Honourable Court.

The ground of the application was that “the subject matter of this suit having been acquired by the Lagos State Government by virtue of Notice No. 236 of 14th of October 1959, published in Gazette No. 25 of 24th October 1969 divested the Claimant/Respondent of locus standi and the court of any jurisdiction in respect of the subject claim, and that the suit was an abuse of court process.

After a careful consideration of the supporting affidavit, the counter affidavit and addresses of the respective parties and the said prohibitive legal notice relied upon in the application, the court gave a considered Ruling. The Ruling is found at page 81 of the Record of Appeal.

By the said ruling, the learned trial judge dismissed the application in its entirety, holding the public lands acquisition Act inapplicable to the claim before the court and sanctioning the applicability and pre-eminent status of the right of the claimant to approach the court and the jurisdiction of the trial High Court to adjudicate or entertain exclusively all such claims; and that the merit of the substantive suit will not be delved into at the interlocutory stage based on pleadings alone.

Dissatisfied with the said Ruling, the Applicant/1st Defendant lodged an appeal to this court and upon two grounds of appeal.