BALA DOGARI V AUDU WAZIRI & ANOR.
April 24, 2025SUBURBAN BROADBAND LTD NIGERIA V INTELSAT GLOBAL SALES & MARKETING LTD.
April 24, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2016) Legalpedia (CA) 18856
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT ABUJA
Tue Mar 22, 2016
Suit Number: CA/A/275/2012
CORAM
PARTIES
AMINU BALA APPELLANTS
ALHAJI HASSAN GURNIGERIAN SOCIAL INSURANCE TRUST FUND PLCTRUST FUND PENSION PLC RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant was in occupation of Block 9 flat 10 Katampe NSITF estate (the house in dispute) belonging to the 2nd Respondent, Nigerian Social Insurance Trust Fund Plc (NSITF), which was transferred to the 3rd Respondent (Trust Fund Pension Plc). ). The 2nd and 3rd Respondents offered to the Appellant who was a tenant, the first option to purchase the disputed property, via a letter. He accepted the offer, paid 10% of the purchase price and offered to pay the balance later, as agreed. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents later suspended the sales and reviewed the price and the period within which payment could be made. The Appellant and other co-tenants felt aggrieved and sued the 2nd and 3rd Respondents at the Federal High Court Abuja, for specific performance of the earlier contract sale agreement. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents thereafter sold the disputed house to the 1st Respondent during the pendency of the suit at the Federal High Court. The 1st Respondent sued the Appellant initially at the Magistrate Court for possession but the suit was struck out. He then commenced an action at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory to which the Appellant and 2nd Respondent filed a Preliminary Objection to. The Preliminary Objection of the Appellant was dismissed and the prayers of the 1st Respondent were granted. Dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court, the Appellant has appealed to the Court of Appeal.
HELD
Appeal Allowed
ISSUES
Was the learned trial judge right in holding that the 1st Respondent’s Suit was competently brought by Originating Summons? (Ground 2). Was the learned trial judge right in holding that the 1st Respondent had locus standi to institute the action? (Ground 1). Was the learned trial judge right in not dismissing the 1st Respondent’s Suit as an abuse of Court’s process? (Ground 5). Was the learned trial judge right in entering judgment in favour of the 1st Respondent? (Grounds 3 and 4).
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ORIGINATING SUMMONS – INSTANCE WHEN AN ORIGINATING SUMMONS WILL BE APPROPRIATE IN COMMENCING AN ACTION
“From the foregoing, it is evident that when the issue concerns the construction or interpretation of a written law or an instrument made under it, will, deed or contract, then Originating Summons is the appropriate method of commencing the Suit This can arise, when a section of the Constitution or a piece of legislation is to be interpreted. Where however the issue is contentious and disputes as to facts are likely to be substantial, then the Suit cannot be commenced by way of Originating Summons – Inakotu Vs. Adleke (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1025) 423; Ezeigwe Vs. Nwawulu (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1183) 159 and Amasike Vs. Registrar-General (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt 1211) 337.”
ACTION FOR RECOVERY OF PREMISES – WHETHER ORIGINATING SUMMONS IS THE PROPER PROCEDURE FOR COMMENCING AN ACTION FOR RECOVERY OF PREMISES
“Furthermore, from the questions posed in the Originating Summons, I agree with learned counsel for the appellant, that it is recovery of premises that was intended, as no clause in the contract was put up for interpretation nor was any document sought to be construed. Whether the recovery could succeed in law or not, is not the issue. The process shows that that was the intendment and so, Originating Summons cannot be the appropriate method – section 10 of the Recovery of Premises Act Cap 544 Laws of FCT and Minister Federal Ministry Of Housing And Urban Development Vs. A-G Federation (Supra) at page 367”.
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Recovery of Premises Act Cap 544 Laws of FCT|
