n Compulaw - 1st Indigenous Digital Law Library
Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Sharing Cross Educational Services Ltd V. Adamu Ent. Ltd (2020) CLR 3(f) (SC)

Judgement delivered on March 13th 2020

Brief

  • Rules of Court
  • He who asserts must prove – Nature of principle
  • Fresh point on Appeal
  • Order 6, Rule 5 (1) of the Supreme Court Rules
  • Rule 20(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2007
  • Rule 20(3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2007
  • Section 131 of the Evidence Act 2011
  • Section 132 of the Evidence Act 2011
  • Section 133(1) of the Evidence Act 2011
  • Section 115(2) of the Evidence Act 2011
  • Section 131(1) of the Evidence Act 2011

Facts

The 1st Respondent was the plaintiff in the suit No. FCT/HC/CV.50/2006. The suit filed at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory Abuja was before Folasade Ojo, J. The 1st Respondent had challenged the 2nd and 3rd Respondents herein for the alleged unconstitutional revocation of its Statutory Right of Occupancy over plot No. 595 along Adetokunbo Ademola Crescent, Wuse II, Abuja granted since 1994. It had built up structures thereon and was in possession of the said plot. The said title was allegedly - revoked and the plot re-allocated to the Appellant/Applicant who, on 24th September 2006, physically took over possession of the plot from the 1st Respondent. The 1st Respondent in the said suit claimed that the allocation of its plot to the Applicant was spurious and further that the 2nd and 3rd Respondents at the instigation of the Applicant on 24th September 2006 sent their agents to pull down its existing structures on the land.

The trial Court heard the suit and entered judgment for the 1st Respondent on 25th July 2009. All the reliefs sought by the 1st Respondent including a declaration that the statutory Right of Occupancy enured and subsisted in the 1st Respondent and the injunctive orders to restrain the Applicant and the 2nd and 3rd Respondent's from disputing the 1st Respondent title and/or entering the said plot were entered in favour of the 1st Respondent. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents seem to accept and succumb to the judgment of the trial Court.

Subsequent to the judgment, they issued a new Certificate of Occupancy, Exhibit A1, to reinstate the old Certificate of Occupancy they had purportedly revoked, the revocation of which was one of the grievances that prompted the 1st Respondent's suit at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory.

The Appellant's appeal at the Court of Appeal, seeking to upturn the decision of the Trial Court was dismissed hence this further appeal.

Read More