Legalpedia Citation: (2014) Legalpedia (CA) 71511
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT LAGOS
Tue May 27, 2014
Suit Number: CA/IL/96/2013
CORAM
PARTIES
AIRTEL NETWORKS LTD. APPELLANTS
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF KWARA STATE
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
SUMMARY OF FACTS ALASAN BABATUNDE, AJAGUNNA II OLUKARE OF IKARE VS GOVERNOR, WESTERN REGION 1960 FSC 207/1959 [1960] NSCC 41 The Claimants/Appellants commenced this action by way of originating summons seeking for the resolution of some questions and for declaratory reliefs amongst which are a declaration that the Defendants/Respondents lacked the power to impose fines or taxes for telecommunications installation and matters ancillary thereto pursuant to the Kwara State Land Charge Law, 2009 having regard to section 4(2) and Items 46, 66 and 68 of the Exclusive Legislative List of the 1999 Constitution, a declaration that the imposition of and demand for land charges on the Claimant’s G.S.M. Mast installations in Kwara State claiming the sum of N84, 348, 000.00 made pursuant to the Kwara State Land Charge Law, 2009 are inconsistent with the provisions section 4(2) and item 46,66 and 68 of the 1999 Constitution as they relate to the Claimant’s telecommunication business and operations. After due consideration of the case of the parties, the trial court resolved the issues against the Claimant/Appellant, thus, this instant appeal.
HELD
ALASAN BABATUNDE, AJAGUNNA II OLUKARE OF IKARE VS GOVERNOR, WESTERN REGION 1960 FSC 207/1959 [1960] NSCC 41
ISSUES
1. Whether certain provisions and indeed the whole of the Kwara State Land Charge Law, 2009 are not in contravention of, inconsistent and in conflict with the 1999 Constitution, the Land Use Act and Taxes and Levies (Approved List for Collection) Act and thereby null and void. ?
2.Whether having held that the Land Charge Law does not have retrospective affect, it does not behave on the Court to nullify the imposition of tax on the Appellant by the Respondents for the period when the Law has not come into effect. Whether it was proper for the Lower Court to ignore the impropriety of levying tax on the Appellant by the Respondents for the period and in respect of sites not yet acquired or Masts not yet erected therein. ?
3. Whether Exhibit CA6 is valid and properly issued by the appropriate authority as envisaged by the Land Charge Law.?
4. Whether the judgment of the Lower Court is not against the weight of evidence.?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ALASAN BABATUNDE, AJAGUNNA II OLUKARE OF IKARE VS GOVERNOR, WESTERN REGION 1960 FSC 207/1959 [1960] NSCC 41
SECTION 22 OF THE LAND USE ACT – DEFINITION OF ‘PROPERTY’ AND ‘LAND CHARGE’
“The word ‘property’ used in section 1(1) is defined in section 22 to include; a parcel of land, an improvement, or a parcel of land and improvement while “Land Charge” is defined as including all property and Land based rates and Charges other than the tenement rates”.
CONTRUCTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OR STATUTE – WORDS USED IN STATUTES SHOULD BE GIVEN THEIR CLEAR AND ORDINARY MEANING EXCEPT WHERE SUCH WOULD LEAD TO MANIFEST ABSURDITY.
“The principle is now well established that in the construction of provisions of the Constitution or any statute, if the words used therein are plain, clear and unambiguous the words must be accorded their ordinary meaning unless where such interpretation will lead to absurdity. See Ekulo Farms Ltd Vs. Union Bank Of Nigeria Plc (2006) 4 SC (Pt. 1); Fashakin Foods (Nig.) Ltd Vs. Shosanya (2006) 10 NWLR (Pt. 987) 126; Adetayo Vs. Ademola (2070) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1215) 169; A.G. Bendel State Vs. A.G.Federation (1982) 3 NCLR 1; Awolowo Vs. Shagari (1979) 6 – 9 SC 73; CAC VS. INEC (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1048) 220; N.D.I.C. VS. Okem Enterprises (2004) 10 NWLR (Pt. 880) 107; Texaco Panama Inc. Vs. Shell SPDCN Ltd (2002) 6 NWLR (Pt. 759) 211.”
INHERENT POWERS OF THE STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY – THE STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY HAS INHERENT POWERS TO LEGISLATE ON MATTERS NOT INCLUDED IN THE EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATIVE LIST FOR THE GOOD GOVERNANCE OF THE STATE. – SECTION 4 (7) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA.
“The clear and unambiguous provision of section 4 (7) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) is that the House of Assembly of a State has power to legislate for good governance of the State on matters not included in the Exclusive Legislative List, which by section 4(2) is the preserve of the National Assembly.”
KWARA STATE LAND CHARGE LAW, 2009 – ESSENCE OF THE KWARA STATE LAND CHARGE LAW, 2009
“The Kwara State Land Charge Law, 2009 is a law that simply provides for the levying and collection of Land Charge or what is referred to as land base charge on property located on land within the state land does not in any way contain or Include taxes on telecommunications, Masts or any communication service.”
DOCTRINE OF COVERING THE FIELD – THE DOCTRINE OF COVERING THE FIELD PRESUPPOSES THAT THE STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY IS PRECLUDED FROM LEGISLATING ON MATTERS ALREADY LEGISLATED UPON BY THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY.
“The doctrine of covering the field forbids a State House of Assembly from enacting a law in respect of a matter which there is already in existence provisions of the Constitution or an Act of the National Assembly on the same subject matter.”
RELIEF – THE COURT LACKS JURISDICTION TO GRANT RELIEF NOT CLAIMED BY A PARTY.
“It has become well settled that a court does not possess jurisdiction over any relief not claimed in an action and will therefore not normally grant or even make any valid order in respect of a relief not claimed by a plaintiff. The Court is not a charitable institution that donates to people what they have not sought. See Okeowo Vs. Miglore 1979 11 SC (Reprint) 87; Akapo Vs. Hakeem – Habeeb (1992) 7 SCNJ 119; Akinbobola Vs. Pisson Fisco (1991) 1 NWLR (PT. 167) 270; Ezeonwu Vs. Onyechi (1996) 3 NWLR (Pt. 438) 499.”
EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE BY THE COURT – IT IS THE DUTY OF THE TRIAL COURT TO EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED AND THE APPELLATE COURT WOULD NOT INTERFERE WITH SUCH EVALUATION EXCEPT THE FINDINGS ARE PERVERSE.
“The Law is that the duty to evaluate evidence and make findings of fact from the evidence is primarily that of the trial Court, and an appellate Court will not readily interfere with such findings or substitute its own views for that of the trial Court unless the appellate Court has been satisfied that the evaluation did not follow the applicable principles or that the findings are themselves perverse. See Iriri Vs. Erhurhobora (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt. 173} 252; Are Vs. Ipaye (1990) 3 SC (Pt. 11) 109; Bamigboye Vs. University Of Ilorin (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt. 622) 290; Egiri Vs. Uperi (1974) 1 NMLR 12; Anyanwu Vs. Mbara (1992) 6 SCNJ 90; Salawu Vs. Yusuf (2007) 5 SC 35; Osolu Vs. Osolu (2003) 6 SC (Pt. 1).”
EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – WHERE IT IS SHOWN THAT THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN PROPERLY EVALUATED BY THE TRIAL COURT, THE APPELLATE COURT LACKS THE POWER TO INTERFERE WITH SUCH FINDINGS MADE.
“Where therefore the trial court has properly evaluated the evidence in the case, it is not the business of the appellate Court to interfere with the findings of fact made by that Court; Idesoh Vs. Ordia (1997) 3 NWLR (Pt. 491) 71.”
CASES CITED
ALASAN BABATUNDE, AJAGUNNA II OLUKARE OF IKARE VS GOVERNOR, WESTERN REGION 1960 FSC 207/1959 [1960] NSCC 41
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
2. Kwara State Land Charge Law, 2009.