Before the Federal High Court, Uyo the plaintiffs, now appellants by way of originating summons presented the following questions for determination:
-
1
Whether in consideration of the entire circumstances of the matters enveloping the staff housing units at Ewet Housing Estate, Uyo between 1991 and 2007 as these relate to the SOS petitions/appeals by the staff occupants (the plaintiffs) to the University of Uyo (1st defendant) on one hand, and by the said plaintiffs to the then Governors of Akwa Ibom State and the Property Development Authority now APICO (2nd defendant) on the other hand, the meetings held, the transactions, negotiations letters, and developments that followed thereafter between the said parties whether there was no indices and/or implication of Fiduciary Trust Relationship between the 1st defendant and the plaintiffs and whether the 1st defendant was not acting as a trustee on behalf of the plaintiffs.
-
2
Whether in consideration of the letter of reply with reference nos. PDA/E.S.41/S.77 dated I7th December 1992 and given by the Akwa Ibom State property Development Authority (2nd defendant) to the UniUyo Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) upon enquires by the organization concerning the purchase of the said Staff Housing Units at Ewet Housing uyo by the 1st defendant. There is no indication and or implication of fiduciary Trust Relationships between the 1st defendant and the plaintiffs and whether the 1st defendant, by making the said purchase, was not doing so in the interest of the plaintiffs, as a Trustee on behalf of the plaintiffs.
-
3
Whether a Trustee who purchased property on behalf of his beneficiary/subjects does not owe the said beneficiaries subjects a duty to formally handover the said purchased property to the said beneficiaries/subjects and to render account and refund excess monetary deductions from the beneficiaries/subjects' salaries if it had indeed been making such monthly deductions on the property purchased on behalf of his subjects.
-
4
Whether in view of the decision of Akwa Ibom State Government/APICO as communicated to UniUyo. The 1st defendant on 16th December 1994 with reference No. PDA/ES.41S.77/Vol.11/267 given the 1st defendant 14 days to declare its stand on the said housing units it paid for on behalf of the plaintiffs to wit: - That either the 1st defendant would rather agree to pay a higher market value and own the said housing units or hand them over to the plaintiffs at the low government subsidized prices as Government had acceded to the plaintiffs outcry, request and passionate appeal for Government's assistance to enable the plaintiff own the said houses, and of which the 1st defendant failed, refused and/or neglected to comply with the said housing units did not belong to the plaintiffs with effect from 3st December 1994 being the day after the expiration of the said 14 days given to the 1st defendant, particularly as the 1st defendant had been making deductions on housing from the plaintiffs salaries.
The appellants then claimed the following reliefs:
-
1
A declaration of this Honorable Court that in all matters concerning the Ewet housing Estate, Uyo as occupied by the plaintiffs vis-a-vis the various communication between the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant on the one hand, and between the plaintiffs and 2nd defendant' government on the second hand, the meetings, letters, dealings, negotiation and payments made by the 1st defendant to the 2nd defendant - all between the period 1991 to 2007, there was and is a fiduciary trust relationship between the 1st defendant and the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant acted as Trustee on behalf of the plaintiffs.
-
2
An order of this Honorable Court directing the 1st defendant to formally hand over the said housing units to the plaintiffs who became owners from 31st December 1994 after the 1st defendant failed, refused and/or neglected to act as per the decision of the 2nd defendant and Government which was conveyed to the 1st defendant in a letter uith ref. no PDA/ES.41/S.77/ Vol. 111/267 dated 16th December 1994 as Government 2nd defendant had originally intended that the 1st defendant purchased the said houses at Government's low subsidized rates on behalf of the plaintiffs.
-
3
An order of this honorable court directing the 2nd defendant to issue Certificates of Ownership/Occupancy on the said housing units directly to the plaintiff according to the plaintiffs' occupation of the said housing units as listed hereunder:
-
4
An order of this honorable court directing the 1st defendant to stop further monthly deductions on housing from the salaries of the plaintiffs and to render accounts to the plaintiffs within 30 days of the judgment of this honorable court on all housing deductions made on/from the monthly salaries of the plaintiffs with effect from 31/12/ 1994 and to refund the excess deductions to the plaintiffs within the said 30 days, noting the subsidized rates/prices of each houses (sic) as aforementioned and as sold to the 1st defendant on behalf of the plaintiffs."
The genesis of the transaction from which this appeal arose dates back to the 1980's when the 1st respondent was known as the University of Cross River State (UNICROSS). Also the 2nd respondent, the Akwa Ibom State Property Investment Company (APICO) was formerly known as Akwa Ibom State Property Development Authority.
In or about 1983 the 2nd respondent offered to sell its 21 housing units at Ewet Housing Estate Uyo Akwa Ibom State to the 1st respondent for accommodation for its staff. Subsequently the 1st respondent allocated the houses to 21 members of its staff. The 1st respondent upon allocating the houses to its staff (which included the appellants) stopped paying them housing subsidies but rather made monthly deductions from their salaries, possibly towards payment for the houses.
Though the 1st respondent made some part payment for the houses, it defaulted in meeting in full its financial obligation for the purchase of the houses.
The 2nd respondent revoked the offer and attempted to recover possession of the houses from the 21 staff/occupants. Eventually 11 of the occupants yielded to restless pressure from the 2nd respondent and vacated the houses they occupied, leaving the 10 appellants who resisted all effort of the 2nd respondent to eject them from its remaining 10 housing units. The 2nd respondent later advertised the housing units occupied defiantly by the appellants for sale to members of the Public.
Following the above, the appellants wrote to the 1st respondent informing it of their intention to purchase the housing units occupied by them and solicited its assistance m negotiating with the 2nd respondent and paying for the houses on their behalf. They wrote a similar letter to the 2nd respondent. Following appeals to that end, the 2nd respondent considered the appeals of the appellants to allow them purchase the houses they occupied at very low prices subsidized by the Government. The appellants empowered the 1st respondent, through its Vice Chancellor to negotiate and pay for the houses on their behalf while deducting the purchase price installmentally from their monthly salaries. The 1st respondent did so and the 2nd respondent agreed to sell the houses at Government subsidized prices to the appellant.
The 1st respondent paid for and purchased the houses in its name and later wrote the 2nd respondent to issue the certificate of ownership of the housing units in its name. The 2nd respondent in reply reminded the 1st respondent that those houses were sold by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent on the understanding that the 1st respondent purchased the said houses on behalf of the appellants. It further stated that if the lst respondent now wants to have the houses for itself it must pay for it at higher prices, not the subsidized price meant for the appellants. It gave the respondent 14 days to open negotiation in this regard which the 1st respondent did not utilize. When all efforts to resolve the matter amicably failed, the appellants brought this action claiming the aforesaid reliefs.
In its judgment the trial court resolved all the questions for determination against the appellants and accordingly dismissed the suit for being hypothetical, speculative and spurious.
Dissatisfied with the decision the appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal.
