CaseLaw
Erunmwunse V. Ehanire (2003) CLR 5(c) (SC)
Judgement delivered on May 30th 2003
Brief
Facts
Mr. John Ehanire who is the Respondent in this appeal, gave a brief account of what happened between him and the Appellant before he filed his suit in the Oredo Area Customary Court. He explained his case in the following narrative.
By a Deed of Transfer dated 17th February, 1986 and Registered as No.42, at page 42 in volume 687 at the Lands Registry Office Benin City, the Defendant transferred the said storey building to the Plaintiff absolutely with the relevant Governor's consent dated 12th February, 1986 and Registered as No.16 at page 16 in volume 689 of the Lands Registry Benin City.
At all times material to this action the Defendant was a tenant at will of Plaintiff, occupying the whole storey building and premises known as and situate at No. 3, Osagie Street, Off St. Saviour Road, Benin City by the let, leave and grace of the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff served notice to quit on the Defendant which determined the tenancy on 28th February, 1986.
Despite repeated demands, the Defendant has failed and/or neglected to give up possession ever since and still detains same. WHEREFORE the Plaintiff claims as follows:
The hearing of the case was opened. The Area Customary Court recorded evidence from witnesses and during the address learned counsel for the Appellant made a submission challenging the jurisdiction of the Area Customary Court to adjudicate on the claim filed by the Respondent before it. Learned counsel pointed out that Exhibit "A" is a Statutory Right of Occupancy issued by the Governor and under Section 39 of the Land Use Decree (now Act) only High Court has original jurisdiction in proceedings in respect of land the subject of a Statutory Right of Occupancy. He further argued that having regard to the parties' stand on the documents said to have transferred the property to the Plaintiff there ought to be a Court's pronouncement on the ownership of the house before the Area Customary Court could pronounce on the issue of rent.
Learned counsel for the Plaintiff/Respondent, (in this appeal) replied that the Area Customary Court had jurisdiction to try the case as formulated. He submitted that on the face of the documents tendered ownership of the property is in the Plaintiff and it is not ah issue in dispute between the parties. He further argued that the claim of the Plaintiff is not for a declaration or injunction. The trial Area Customary Court considered both submissions in its judgment and concluded that it was competent to hear the claim brought before it by the Respondent.