Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Eze V. AG. Rivers (2001) CLR 12(d) (SC)

Judgement delivered on December 14th, 2001

Brief

  • Fresh point on appeal
  • Jurisdiction

Facts

The Plaintiff/Appellant claimed in Suit PHC/139/83 in the Port Harcourt (Rivers State) High Court among other reliefs, a declaration that the purported sale of his buildings situate at Plot 2, Block 260 - Wobo Layout, Diobu known as No. 61 Ikwerre Road and registered as No - 36 at page 36 in volume 280 at the Lands Registry, Enugu now kept at Port Harcourt, to the 2nd Defendant (herein 2nd Respondent) is unconstitutional, and null and void, and an account of any monies received by the 2nd Respondent as rents from the tenants of the premises and payment over the Appellant or in the alternative, N380,000.00 as the market value of the said property.

By his 13 paragraph Amended Statement of Claim, he (Appellant) averred that by a deed of lease dated 30th March, 1961 and registered as No. 69 at page 69 in Volume 260 of the Lands Registry, Enugu now Harcourt, Messrs George Ezeikpe, Sunday Agwu, Anagha Ezeikpe and Agu Trading under the name and style of George Ezeikpe Brothers and Sons, were granted lease of the property in dispute by the then Minister of Town Planning, Eastern Nigeria. Further, that by a deed of assignment dated 7th December, 1964 and registered as No. 36 at page 36 in Volume 380 in the same registry the lessees assigned the unexpired term of the Appellant, who took possession of the same; erected a building thereon consisting of two building of three floors in front of the premises and another house of three floors behind. Further still, that on completion of the building, he and his family resided in part of it and let the other rooms between 1965 and 1968 though forced to flee Port Harcourt in the wake of the Nigerian civil war.

On the cessation of the Nigerian civil war, the Appellant said he returned to Port Harcourt and tried to regain possession of the buildings but was informed that the 1st Respondent had acquired the premises with all the buildings thereon. He thereupon stated that on 25/8/80, he discovered that the 2nd Respondent in Suits No PMC/62/80, PMC/63/80 and PMC/64/80 had sued all the tenants occupying the premises. Wherein he also applied and was on 3/10/90 joined as co-defendant in a suit adjourned sine die by the Chief Magistrate Court. On a further inquiry at the Lands Office and Abandoned Property Office in Port Harcourt, the Appellant stated that he discovered that the 2nd Respondent had paid a deposit of six thousand the Naira for the land, house and premises sold to the 2nd Respondent for a consideration of sixty thousand Naira, Appellant then averred that as he had not been paid any compensation for the land, buildings and premises hence he brought this action.

The 1st Respondent countered by a 10 paragraph Amended Statement of Defence wherein he admitted that the property in dispute is State owned and that the lease of 30th March, 1961 was for a term of 40 years commencing from 1st January, 1959 and registered as No. 69 at page 69 in Volume 260 of the Land Registry Enugu. He averred that the partners trading under the name and style of Ezeikpe Bros. & Sons indeed granted an irrevocable power of attorney registered as No. 73 page 73 in Volume 255 of the Land Registry to the Appellant which was effected without the prior consent of the Governor. Further, the 1st Respondent admitted the deed of assignment of the unexpired lease of 10 years in favour of the Appellant registered as to No. 36, page 36 in Volume 380 of the Lands, but stated that the same was without the prior consent of the Governor, In further answer, the 1st Respondent averted that by virtue of the provisions of the Abandoned Property (Custody and Management) Edict (1969), the property became abandoned property lawfully leased to the 2nd Respondent and the same registered as No.99, page 99 in Volume 79 of the Lands Registry, Port Harcourt. Finally, the 1st Respondent averted that by virtue of the Public Officers Protection Law, and the Abandoned Properties Decree, No-90 of 1979 Laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the action is statute-barred, and the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Suit.

The 2nd Defendant/Respondent, a policeman, in his 19 paragraph Amended Statement of Defence, whilst admitting the property in dispute to be 61 Ikwerre Road, Port Harcourt, averred that the property was not assigned to him but leased to him by Rivers State Government under the State Land Law as per Deed of Building Lease dated 19th March, 1979 and registered as No.99 at page 79 in Volume 79 of the Lands Registry, Port Harcourt further stated that the property being State land subject to State Land Law, on 18th July, 1979, the Abandoned Properties Implementation Committee (APIC for short) offered and he accepted, to buy the property in dispute by paying a purchase price of N6.800.00 after securing a loan of N61,200.00 from the Federal Mortgage Bank for its development. He further stated that upon completion of the purchase, the Rivers State Government idled him a lease of the property per Deed of Building Lease dated 19th March 1979 and registered as No.99 at page 99 Volume 79 of the Lands Registry. Port Harcourt. He relied on section I (I) of the Abandoned Properties Decree (No.90) of 1979 by contending that any interest the Appellant has in the property is compensation as advertised in the Nigerian Tide Publication of Monday l5th July, 1985.

Issues

  • `
    Did the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal exercise their discretion...
    Read More