Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

CIL Risk and Asset Management Ltd V. Ekiti State Government (2020) CLR 3(a) (SC)

Judgement delivered on March 13th 2020

Brief

  • Public officers Protection Act - Exceptions to
  • Reasonable Cause of action
  • Cause of action and Statement of claim
  • Cause of action
  • Statute barred action – Effect of
  • Public Officers Protection Act – Applicability of to State agencies/officers
  • Public Officers Protection Act – Applicability of to cases of recovery of land and/or breach of contract
  • Section 4(6) of the 1999 Constitution as amended
  • Section 4(7) of the 1999 Constitution as amended
  • Section 4(2) of the 1999 Constitution as amended
  • Section 4(3) of the 1999 Constitution as amended
  • Section 2(a) of Public Officers Protection Act
  • Section 2 of Public Officers Protection Act
  • Order 22 Rules 1 & 2 of the Ekiti State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules

Facts

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Ado-Ekiti Division delivered on 11th July 2018, Coram: A. B. Belgore, F. O. Akinbami and P. O. Elechi JJCA otherwise called the Court below or Lower Court.

Brief Statement Of Facts

Sometime in the year 2007, the Appellant was granted title to a parcel of land measuring 26.672 hectares along Ikare Road, Ado-Ekiti for the purpose of building a five star hotel. As evidence of the grant, a Certificate of Occupancy was issued to the appellant in the year 2008.

Subsequently, the Certificate above mentioned was withdrawn and another one was issued in its place in the year 2011, but registered in the year 2012. Both Certificates contained terms and conditions including a term requiring the appellant to pay annual rent in the sum of N691,450,00 (Six Hundred and Ninety One Thousand, Four Hundred and Fifty Naira) in relation to the Certificate of 2008 and the sum of N6,668,000.00 for the Certificate of 2011 also inclusive in the terms of the grant was that the appellant must erect and complete the building on the land in line with Government approved building plans within 2 years of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. The appellant failed to comply with the terms of the grant particularly as it related to the payment of ground rent and development of the land within 2 years of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, consequent upon which the 1st Respondent by notice of revocation dated 16th October 2014 (contained at page 202 of volume 1 of the record of appeal) revoked the Appellant's right of occupancy and subsequently awarded the said parcel of land to the 4th Respondent.

In October 2016, the Notice of Revocation was published in a newspaper. Aggrieved that the notice of revocation was served or made known to it through the dailies, the appellant by writ of summons commenced this action at the Ekiti State High Court challenging the said revocation.

Deducible from the statement of claim is that the Appellant failed to plead payment of ground rent from 2007 - 2012. The appellant also pleaded that it erected a fence on the land between February and April 2015 (outside the 2 years period for development contained in the Certificate).

Premised on the foregoing, upon being served with the writ of summons and statement of claim, the 1st - 3rd Respondents filed a preliminary objection challenging the competence of the action on the grounds inter alia, that the action is statute barred, the revocation having taken place on 16th December 2014 and that the suit discloses no reasonable cause of action. The 4th respondent also filed a preliminary objection along the same terms. The appellant filed a counter-affidavit denying receipt and or service of any notice of revocation in December 2014. Pursuant thereto, the 1st - 3rd respondents filed a further affidavit and attached Exhibit F a receipt evidencing payment for dispatch of the notice of revocation and Exhibit FBA1, proof of delivery of the said notice of revocation.

Before the hearing and determination of the objection of the respondents, the appellant filed an application which in content is an objection challenging the respondents' preliminary objections.

The learned trial Judge heard arguments on both objections and upheld the respondents objection that the action is statute barred, after finding as a fact that the appellant was served with the notice of revocation in December 2014.

Dissatisfied with the ruling of the Lower Court, the appellant appealed against same to the Court of Appeal, the Notice of Appeal is contained at pages 1035-1045 of the record. The Appeal was argued on 9th April 2018.

In a considered judgment delivered on 11th April, 2018, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the finding of fact by the High Court that the appellant was indeed served with the notice of revocation in December 2014 and as such the action is statute barred.

Aggrieved, the appellant has come before this Apex Court on appeal.

Issues

  • 1
    Whether by virtue of Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act the...
  • Read More