CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

ALHAJA LATEEFA OKUNNU APPELLANTS

---

MINISTER, FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY & ORS RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

It was the Plaintiff’s/Appellant’s case that she was granted a statutory right of occupancy in respect of Plot No. 2421, Area A6, Maitama District, Abuja covered by a Certificate of Occupancy No. FCT/ABU/LA 200 with Survey Plan No. 332/1005/SE2 dated 5th May, 1991. The Plaintiff/Appellant thereafter erected a brick fence around the property pending the approval of her building by the 1st and 2nd Respondents. Sometime in 2002, the Plaintiff/Appellant discovered some workmen erecting a structure on the land and upon inquiries, by the Plaintiff’s/Appellant’s Solicitors at the 2nd Defendant/Respondent’s Land registry, it was discovered that all records relating to the land were missing. The Plaintiff/Appellant applied to the 2nd Defendant/Respondent for the re-issuance of another certificate of occupancy and by a letter dated 23rd November, 2004; the Plaintiff/Appellant was informed that her Certificate of Occupancy had been revoked. Upon further inquiry, it was discovered that the Certificate of Occupancy had been revoked and the land re-allocated to the 3rd Defendant/Respondent hence an action was instituted by way of originating summons initially at the Federal High Court and same was later transferred to the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory Abuja, against the 1st ,2nd , 3rd Defendant and the 4th Defendant now Respondent who was later joined to the suit.  The Plaintiff/Appellant sought for declarative and injunctive reliefs among which was a declaration that the Plaintiff/Appellant is still the valid/legal owner of the property upon being granted a statutory right of occupancy in respect of Plot No 2421, Area A6, Maitama District, Abuja covered by a Certificate of Occupancy No FCT7ABU/LA 200 with Survey Plan No. 332/1005/SE2 dated 5th May, 1991 and  measuring approximately 1685.96 Square Meters, a declaration that any purported revocation of the Plaintiff’s/Appellant’s afore stated Certificate of Occupancy by the 1st/2nd Defendants/Respondents is illegal, null, void and of no effect which is a direct breach of provisions of the Land Use Act, and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999. In reply the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents filed a joint statement of claim, while the 3rd and 4th Defendants/Respondents filed a joint statement of defence and a counter-claim. At the conclusion of the hearing, judgment was delivered in favour of the 3rd and 4th Defendants/Respondents. However, the trial Court ordered the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondent to provide an alternative plot for the Plaintiff/Appellant. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower Court, the Appellant has appealed to the Court of Appeal.   The 1st and 2nd Respondents cross appealed against the relief granted by the trial court on grounds that it was erroneously granted since the Appellant/ Cross Respondent neither pleaded facts in respect of an alternative plot of land nor sought for allocation for same.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Allowed, Cross Appeal Allowed

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the trial court erred in law when His Lordship held that the revocation of the appellant’s statutory right of occupancy over the property was proper, valid and done in accordance with extant provisions of the Land Use Act Cap. L5 LFN 2004? Whether the grant of a statutory right of occupancy over the property in dispute to the 3rfl respondent and the subsequent transfer of title from the 3rd respondent to the 4th respondent was valid in law? Whether the trial court was entitled to hold that the appellant’s suit was statute-barred by virtue of the Public Officers Protection Act Cap. P41 LFN 2004? Whether the trial court erred in law when His Lordship held that the 3rd and 4th respondents were entitled to the reliefs sought in their counter-claim

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

---

” Section 2 of the Public Officers Protection Act provides that: “2. Where any action, prosecution or other proceeding is commenced against any person for any act done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of any * Act or Law or any public duty or authority, or in respect of any alleged neglect or default, or in respect of any such Act, law, duty or authority, the following shall have effect. (a) The action, prosecution, or proceeding shall not lie or be instituted unless it is commenced within three months next after the act, neglect or default complained of, or in case of continuance or damage or injury, within three months next after ceasing thereof.” – PER M.A.A ADUMEIN, J.C.A PUBLIC OFFICERS PROTECTION ACT – EXTENT OF THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 2 OF THE PUBLIC OFFICERS PROTECTION ACT
‘In the cases of Salako v. L.E.D.B. & Anor. (1953) 20 NLR 169; Nigeria Ports Authority & Anor. v. Contruzion Generali Farsura Cogefar SPA & Anor. (1974) 1 All NLR (Pt. 2) 463 and The Federal Government of Nigeria & 6 Ors. v. Zebra Energy Limited (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 798) 162 the Supreme Court stated categorically that the provisions of section 2 of the Public Officers Protection Act, or provisions in pari materia with this section, do not apply to contracts It should be noted that in the cases of Osuu S. C. Oduko v. Government of Ebonyi State of Nigeria & 3 Ors. (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt. 891) 487 at 493 and the case of Osun State Government v. Dalami Nigeria Limited (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1038) 66 it was held that section 2 of the Public Officers Protection Act does not apply to cases of recovery of land, breach of contract, claims for work and labour done.”

---

PLEADINGS – PARTIES AND THE COURT MUST CONFINE THEIR EVIDENCE AND FINDING TO THE PLEADINGS SETTLED BY THE CONTENDING PARTIES

---

“It should be noted that the parties fought their legal battle in the court below on the bases of pleadings duly filed and exchanged among them. Parties and the court must confine their evidence and findings, respectively, to the pleadings settled by the contending parties. The court, in particular, must confine itself to the evidence on those matters which have been included in the pleadings. See Woluchem v. Gudi (1981) 1 – 5 SC 291; Emegokwue v. Okadigbo (1973) 4 SC 113; George v. Domino Flour Mills (1963) 1 SCNLR 117 and Sosanya v. Onadeko (2005) 8 NWLR (Pt. 926) 185.”

---

PLEADINGS- FACT ADMITTED BY AN ADVERSE PARTY NEED NO FURTHER PROOF

---

“In civil cases, facts admitted by an adverse party in his pleadings need no further proof by the proponent of the facts so admitted See Ekaete Bassey Okposin & 5 Ors. v. Florence Assam (Mrs.) & 6 Ors. (2005) 14 NWLR (Pt. 945) 495.”

---

SPECULATION – WHETHER COURTS SHOULD INDULGE IN SPECULATION

---

“The law is that a court of law should not indulge itself in speculation, which is mere guesswork. See Overseas Construction Co. Ltd. v. Creek Enterprises Ltd. (1985) 3 NWLR (Pt. 13) 407. It should be noted, also, that a court should not act and base its decision on sentiments. See Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Senator Adolphus N. Wabara (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1377) 311 at 357, per I.T. Muhammad, JSC; where the Supreme Court stated inter alia that: “…a court of law only decides on facts and the law presented before it and not on sentiments.” – PER M.A.A ADUMEIN, J.C.A REVOCATION OF RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY- IMPORT OF SECTION 28(6)&(7) OF THE LAND USE ACT ON REVOCATION OF RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY
“Section 28(6) & (7) of the Land Use Act provide thus: “(6) The revocation of a right of occupancy shall be signified under the hand of a public officer duly authorized in that behalf by the Governor and notice thereof shall be given to the holder. (7) The title of the holder of a right of occupancy shall be extinguished on receipt by him of a notice given under subsection (6) of this section or on such later date as may be stated in the notice.” PER M.A.A. ADUMEIN, J.C.A JURISTIC PERSONALITY – ONUS OF PROVING JURISTIC PERSONALITY
“The law is also settled that the burden or onus of proof is on the party who claims juristic personality to prove that status by the production of its certificate of incorporation. See Ifedapo Community Bank Ltd. v. Eternal Order of C. & S. Church, Saki Branch (2001) 7 NWLR (Pt. 712) 508 and The Principal, Government Secondary School, Ikachi & 7 Ors. v. Dorcas Lgbudu (2005) 12 NWLR (Pt. 940) 543.” PER M.A.A ADUMEIN, J.C.A NEMO DAT QUOD NON HABET- MEANING OF NEMO DAT QUOD NON HABET
“The law is well settled that a person can only give out what he has and not what he does not have. This is whole essence of the Latin maxim: nemo dat quod non habet See Mrs. Ronke Omiyale v. Mobolaji Macaulay & 4 Ors. (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1141) 597 at 625, per Ogbuagu, JSC.” PER M.A.A. ADUMEIN, J.C.A CROSS APPEAL – NATURE OF A CROSS APPEAL
“The law is that a cross appeal is a distinct and an independent appeal, akin to a counterclaim in a suit fought on writ of summons and pleading. See the case of Owner of The MV “Arabella” vs Nigeria Agricultural Insurance Corporation (2008) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1097) 182.” PER M.A.A. ADUMEIN, J.C.A PROOF – STANDARD OF PROOF OF A FACT IN ISSUE IN CIVIL CASES
“In civil cases, the standard of proof of a fact in issue is not beyond reasonable doubt but on the balance of probabilities.”

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Land Registration Act, Laws of the Federation (Abuja), 2007.Land Use Act 1979.|

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT