n Compulaw - 1st Indigenous Digital Law Library
Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Peenok Inv. V. Hotel Presidential (1982) CLR 12(d) (SC)

Judgement delivered on December 3rd 1982

Brief

  • Exercise of legislative powers of State House of Assembly
  • Compulsory acquisition
  • Right to cancel lease of State land required for public purpose
  • Non joinder

Facts

At the end of British colonial rule in 1960 when Nigeria became a sovereign nation the country was made up of three Regions, each with its own government. The Eastern Region, like the other two regions, owned certain enterprises, located in different parts of the said re¬gion. These enterprises, now euphemistically described as "PARASTATALS", in¬cluded the PRESIDENTIAL HOTEL (the respondent) which had on-going hotel facilities at ENUGU and Port-Harcourt. This action is concerned with the respond¬ent's hotel at Port-Harcourt. In 1967, consequent upon the onset of the civil war and the proclamation of the Republic of Biafra in the then Eastern Region of Nige¬ria, three States were created out of the said region by Decree, namely - (a) East Central State (b) Rivers State and (c) South Eastern State. At the end of the civil was in 1970, an agency known as Eastern States Interim Assets and Liabilities Agency (ESIALA) was set up to take over the assets and liabilities of the former Eastern Region.

When this matter went to court in 1977, the following states were now in exist-ence in the former Eastern Region - namely:(a)ANAMBRA (b)IMO (c)RIVERS and (d)CROSS- RIVER.

The above facts are Judicially noticeable under section 73 of the Evidence Act. The action was thus filed In ANAMBRA State as the respondent had its head-of¬fice there (vide the pleadings) although the actual property was now in the RIVERS State. It is significant that the only opposition to this action came from the Ministry of Justice in Anambra State. This State sought to defeat this claim by relying on Edicts promulgated in the Rivers State.

After hearing evidence and counsel's submissions the trial court (UMEZINWA, J.) upheld the appellant's claim in part up to and including the 25th day of Sep-tember, 1973. which was the day immediately before the date of the publication of the RIVERS STATE GOVERNMENT NOTICE No. 412 which purportedly cancelled the appellant's lease. The court expressed its decision in these words:

  • "In the circumstances of this case, the plaintiff in my view will only be entitled to rent for the use and occupation of its property up to the date of the cancel¬lation of its lease….Mr. Agusiobo contends that the plaintiff is entitled to rent for the period 24th March, 1972 to 16th October, 1972. I do not agree with him. Although the Edict came into effect on the 16th October, 1972, plaintiffs lease was not cancelled until the 26th day of September, Plaintiff is therefore entitled to rent or damages for the use and occupation of its property by the defendant from 24th March, 1972 to 25th September, ……. Judgment is therefore entered for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of N81,000."

    • From the foregoing, it is clear that the respondent apart from the reliance it placed on the Edicts of the RIVERS State Government had no defence to the ac-tion.

    Being dissatisfied with the above decision, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which court dismissed the appeal

Issues

  • 1
    What is the test for joinder of parties in a suit?....

Read More