United Nigeria Company Limited V. Joseph Nahman & Ors (2000)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

SANUSI, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the judgment of Silva, J. of Lagos State High Court delivered on 20th June, 1995. The 1st respondent was the plaintiff at the lower court. The appellant was the 3rd defendant while the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents were the 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants respectively at the lower court. The 1st respondent by his final amended statement of claim instituted an action claiming the under-mentioned reliefs:

1. A declaration that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of all that piece or parcel of land which is situated at and known as plot 16 Ijora Causeway, Ijora, Lagos.
2. Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their servants and agents from going on the said plot and further acts of trespass on the said plot 16 Ijora Causeway.
3. N200.00 damages against the defendant for trespass committed on the plaintiff’s said land that is plot 16 Ijora Causeway, Lagos.

Annual Rental value is N456:20k.

The 2nd and 3rd respondents as 1st and 2nd defendants in their final amended statement of defence denied all the plaintiff’s claims. The appellant thereupon on 28/6/82 applied to be joined as the 3rd defendant in the suit and the lower court so joined them. Subsequently, they filed their final amended statement of defence and counter-claim. They also denied all the claims by the plaintiff. In their counter-claims they sought the following reliefs:

“Whereof the 3rd defendant claims a declaration that the order made by this court on 23rd January, 1989 that the Registrar of Titles to rectify Register of Title No. M09639 in respect of plot 16, Ijora Causeway in favour of the plaintiff by restoring the name of Jamil Akkari Abdallah on the proprietorship register of Title No. M09639 is null and void and of no effect whatsoever”.

On its own part, the 4th respondent as the 4th defendant filed his final amended statement of defence wherein he admitted committing an error in registering plot 16, Ijora Causeway Lagos in favour of Bendel State Government and undertook to rectify the Register of Title No. M09639 in favour of the plaintiff by restoring the name of Jamil Akkari Abdallah on the proprietorship register of the said file. He however, denied any inducement by the 1st and 2nd defendants. He however, admitted that he never gave any notice to the plaintiff in that wise. Perhaps it is appropriate to briefly state the facts of this case as presented at the lower court so as to give a background of what led to this appeal. The case of the plaintiff at the lower court is that he was the lawful attorney of one Jamil Akkari Abdallah by the grant of a Power of Attorney dated the 27th March, 1997. He alleged that the disputed plot at No.16, Ijora Causeway (situated at Ijora Industrial Estate) was granted to the said Jamil Akkari Abdallah by the then Mil. Gov., Lagos State for 99 years to expire on the 30/6/2068. The grant was subsequently registered under title No. M09639 at the Land Registry Lagos. The plaintiff alleged that in 1978 he noticed that the 3rd defendant/appellant had come into the land and upon enquiries he found that the company was on the land at the instance of the then Bendel State Government, acting pursuant to a supplement to Federal Government Official Gazette No. 10 Volume 64 of 10th March, 1977 part B otherwise referred to as LN 13 of 1977 which forfeited a 3 acre undeveloped land at Ijora Causeway, Lagos, property of one Edwin Clark and vested it in the Bendel State Government. He further alleged that the land belonging to Edwin Clark which was forfeited vide Legal Notice 13 of 1977 was not the same as the land in dispute.

On 23rd January, 1989, the court below granted an application by the plaintiff praying that the Registrar of Titles 4th defendant/respondent to rectify the Register of Title No. M09639 in respect of Plot 16 Ijora Causeway in favour of the plaintiff by restoring the name of Jamil Akkari Abdallah on the proprietorship register of title No. M09639. The ground for the application was that the 4th defendant had admitted in his Statement of Defence that title to plot 16, Ijora Causeway, Lagos was thoroughly forfeited and registered in favour of Bendel State Government. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the land forfeited by the Federal Government was plot 16A, which originally belonged to one Mattar Brothers but was sold to Edwin Clark and that instead of restricting the forfeiture to that plot of land alone, the Government extended it to the land in dispute.

On the other hand, the substance of the appellant’s counter-claim at the lower court is simply as follows:-

It argued that there was no such person known as Jamil Akkari Abdallah in existence for whom the plaintiff is allegedly acting as an Attorney. Also the land in dispute was identified by the Lagos State Government as the parcel of land referred to as 3 acres of undeveloped land in the legal Notice 13 of 1977 which was forfeited by the Federal Government and vested in the Bendel State Government who in turn granted a sublease of same to the appellant. It also argued that the Power of Attorney issued in favour of the plaintiff was not in relation to plot 16 Ijora Industrial Estate being occupied by the appellant. He finally argued that the order for rectification of the Register of Title No. M09639 in respect of the land in dispute in favour of the plaintiff made by the court on 23/1/1989 was a nullity on the ground that the said Jamil Akkari Abdallah does not exist at all.

Pleadings were ordered, filed, exchanged and later amended. After the lower court took evidence from the parties it entered its judgment in favour of the 1st respondent in all his claims and dismissed the appellants counter-claim in its entirety. Being dissatisfied with the lower court’s judgment the appellant/3rd defendant appealed to this court. The appellant identified three issues for determination in this appeal. These three issues which were also adopted by the respondent’s counsel are listed below:-

1. Whether Joseph Nahman, the plaintiff in this suit has locus standi to seek and obtain the reliefs sought.
2. Whether the plaintiff established his case on the balance of probabilities.
3. Whether the 3rd defendant/appellant was not entitled to succeed on its counter-claim.

It is pertinent to say that only the 1st respondent filed a brief in this appeal. I shall adopt and be guided by these three issues formulated by the appellant’s counsel in deciding this appeal. In doing so, I shall consider and determine the issues seriatim. The first issue touches on a very important principle i.e. locus standi. The appellant in this case raised the issue of locus standi of the 1st respondent at the lower court and raised the same issue here. It is trite law that issue of locus standi relates to jurisdiction and as such can be raised anywhere even in the Supreme Court for the first time. See Oredoyin v. Arowolo (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt.114) 172; A-G., Enugu State v. Avop Plc (1995) 6 NWLR (Pt.399) 90 at 112.

Issue of locus standi is fundamental in that if a court determines that a party to a suit lacks the standing to bring an action, the matter shall automatically terminate there because the court can no longer consider the merit or otherwise of the action or suit. See A G., Enugu State v. Avop Plc (supra).

The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the plaintiff in this suit at the lower court is Joseph Nahman. Since he is not the owner of the land in dispute, he had no locus standi to seek for the declaration as he did at that court. He challenged the lower court’s finding that Jamil Akkari Abdallah is the plaintiff because that finding was not supported by material evidence presented in the case before him e.g. the heading or title of the suit. He referred to the endorsement on the writ as well as the statement of claim.

It is not in dispute that Joseph Nahman sued the parties at the lower court “as Attorney for Jamil Abdallah.” The appellant posed the question that being an “Attorney” to the said Jamil Abdallah, does he have the locus standi to sue as the plaintiff to claim a land which belongs to his principal? In answering the question the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that where an action was commenced by an Attorney for the recovery of money on behalf of a disclosed principal, it was held that such agent or attorney has no locus standi. He referred to the case of Ekuma v. Silver Eagle Shipping Agencies Ltd. (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt.65) 472. He also referred to in his brief, the case of Modupe Folarin Alakija v. Nigeria Door Fabrication Co. Ltd. in suit No. CA/L/229/87 which is unreported. He however did not supply the case to us and all effort made to trace the case which emanates from this division as shown in the suit No. CA/L/229/87 proved abortive. I would rather not comment on it to be on the safe side.