n Compulaw - 1st Indigenous Digital Law Library
Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Amale V. Sokoto LG (2012) CLR 1(f) (SC)

Judgement delivered on January 20th 2012

Brief

  • Pleadings
  • Issues for determination
  • Impartial Judge
  • Deed (Who can sue on)
  • Interpretation of documents
  • Family Propert
  • Declaration of title to land

Facts

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Kaduna Division ("the court below" for short) delivered on the 30th day of October, 2000. Therein, the judgment of the High Court of Justice of Sokoto State ("the trial court" for short) delivered on the 13th day of May, 1996 was set aside. The appellant decided to appeal to this court.

It is apt to state the facts of this matter briefly. In December 1994, the appellant by a motion ex pane applied to the trial court for leave to enforce his fundamental rights which he felt was breached by the respondents when his movable and immovable properties situate at Kofar Kade, Kara Market in Sokoto metropolis were compulsorily acquired by the then Military Governor of Sokoto State. On 9th December 1994, the trial court granted leave to the appellant to enforce his fundamental rights consequent upon which he filed a motion on notice praying the court for the following reliefs:

  • 1
    A declaration that the purported acquisition of both immovable and movable properties of the applicant situate at Kofar Kade, Kara Market, Sokoto by the respondents is illegal, unconstitutional, null and void and gross contravention of section 40 of the 1979 Constitution.
  • 2
    A declaration that the purported revocation of the applicant's right to the landed property situate at Kofar Kacle, Kara Market Sokoto by the then Military Governor of Sokoto State constitutes a violation of his fundamental right to fair hearing as provided in section 33 of the 1979 Constitution.
  • 3
    A perpetual injunction restraining the respondents, their servants, agents, privies and assigns from interfering with the aforesaid rights of the applicant.
  • 4
    An interlocutory injunction restraining the respondents, their servants, agent, privies and assigns from further interfering with the said rights of the applicant pending the determination of the suit.
  • 5
    An order compelling the respondents, their servants, agents, privies and assigns to withdraw from the applicant (sic).
  • 6
    An order awarding the sum of N25,000,000.00 to the applicant for the violation of his aforesaid rights being special, general, aggravated and exemplary damages against the respondents jointly and severally.
  • 7
    And for such further or other orders as this honourable court may deem fit to make in the circumstance.

The learned trial Judge heard the application. In effect, he granted all the reliefs as prayed by the appellant on 13th May, 1996. The respondent felt dissatisfied and appealed to the court below. Thereat, on the date fixed for hearing, the appellants' counsel p (now respondents) was absent from court. The court specifically invited the respondent (now appellant) to address it on whether or not the action, as constituted, can properly be brought under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules. Same was complied with and the court below thereafter set aside the decision of the trial court on the ground that the action which in essence was a claim in respect of title to land and compulsory acquisition was improperly commenced under the stated rules. Against the decision of the court below, the appellant has appealed to this court.

Issues

Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it struck out the appellant's...

Read More