CORAM
HON JUSTICE M.P. ODILI
ABUBAKAR D. YAHAYA JUSTICE. COURT OF APPEAL
TANI YUSUF HASSAN JUSTICE. COURT OF APPEAL
TANI YUSUF HASSAN JUSTICE. COURT OF APPEAL
ABUBAKAR D. YAHAYA JUSTICE. COURT OF APPEAL
TANI YUSUF HASSAN JUSTICE. COURT OF APPEAL
HON JUSTICE M.P. ODILI
ABUBAKAR D. YAHAYA JUSTICE. COURT OF APPEAL
TANI YUSUF HASSAN JUSTICE. COURT OF APPEAL
CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL CHUKWUMA-ENEH
S.M.A BELGORE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL CHUKWUMA-ENEH
S.M.A BELGORE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
S.M.A BELGORE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
CHUKWUNWEIKE IDIGBE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
S.M.A BELGORE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL CHUKWUMA-ENEH
S.M.A BELGORE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
S.M.A BELGORE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL CHUKWUMA-ENEH
S.M.A BELGORE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
S.M.A BELGORE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
S.M.A BELGORE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
CANAL INVESTMENT LIMITED APPELLANTS
TOURIST COUNTRYSIDE RESORTS LIMITED & ORS RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The 1st and 2nd Respondents as Plaintiffs filed a writ of summons and statement of claim against the 3rd Respondent as Defendant at the High Court of Federal Capital Territory Abuja. The 1st Respondent/ Plaintiff was granted a Certificate of Occupancy No FCT/ABU/MISC/10972 over plots 498 and 499 Central Business District on 31th October, 1994. The 1st Respondent appointed the 2nd Respondent as her lawful attorney and management of all the affairs pertaining to plots 498 and 499, which allocation was subsequently withdrawn by the 3rd Respondents. The 3rd Respondent sometime around 2004/2005 demanded that owners of parcels of land within the FCT should submit their title documents for recertification and the Respondents submitted their original copy of the Certificate of Occupancy in respect of plots 498 and 499and a revocation notice was delivered to the Respondents. The Appellant was allocated both plots by the 3rd Respondent and same was renamed Plot 1138 in Cadastral Zone AOO of Central Business District FCT Abuja, who immediately commenced the construction of a shopping complex on the said plot which was completed within 2 years. The 1st and 2nd Respondents came with a claim that they had obtained judgment from the High Court to take over the shopping complex without giving the Appellant the opportunity of being served and heard at the trial before judgment was delivered hence this appeal by the Appellant who was not a party in the suit before the lower court seeking declarative and injunctive orders for leave to appeal as an interested person against the decision of the trial court amongst others.
HELD
Appeal Allowed.
ISSUES
? Whether the non-joinder of the Minister, Federal Capital Territory (“Minister FCT”) and the appellant robbed the trial court of jurisdiction to hear and determine the 1st and 2nd Respondents action thus leading to a miscarriage of justice.? Whether or not it is sufficiently notorious to residents or inhabitants of FCT, Abuja that infra¬structures in Central Business District FCT, Abuja are already established and/or developed? Whether the 1st and 2nd Respondents are guilty of estoppel by conduct
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ESTOPPEL BY SILENCE OR STANDING BY –PRINCIPLE OF ESTOPPEL BY SILENCE OR STANDING BY
“The general rule as to estoppel by silence or standing by was laid down in Ramsden Vs Dyson (1886) L.R.I.H.L 129 where it was held that “if a stranger begins to build on land supposing it to be his own and the real owner perceiving his mistake abstains from setting him right and leaves him to preserve in his error a court of equity will not afterwards allow the real owner to assert his title to the land”. This case was cited with authority by the Supreme Court in Yusuff Vs Dada (supra). Initeni Vs Efamo (2001) 10 NWLR (part 720) 1”. PER T. Y. HASSAN, J.C.A<foo< p=””></foo<>
NECESSARY PARTIES – MEANING OF NECESSARY PARTIES
“Necessary parties are those who are not only interested in the subject matter of the proceedings, but also who, in their absence, the proceedings could not be fairly dealt with. In other words the question to be settled in the action between the parties cannot be properly settled unless they are parties to the action instituted by the plaintiff. See Green Vs Green (1987) 3 NWLR (part 61) 480, Mobil Oil Plc Vs Denr Ltd (2004) XNWLR (part 853) 142, Lawal Vs PGD (Nig.) Ltd. (2001) 17 NWLR (part 742) 393 and Obasanjo Vs Yusuf (2004) 9 NWLR (part 877) 144.”PER T. Y. HASSAN, J.C.A<foo< p=””></foo<>
REVOCATION OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY – POWER OF THE GOVERNOR OF A STATE OR MINISTER TO REVOKE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
“Section 28(5)(a) and (b) of the Land Use Act 1978 is to the effect that a Governor of a State (Minister at Federal) has power to revoke a Certificate of Occupancy for a breach of the terms which is deemed to be contained in the Certificate of Occupancy N.E.W. Ltd Vs Denap Ltd (1997) 10 NWLR (part 525) 481 at 487 – 488.” PER T. Y. HASSAN, J.C.A<foo< p=””></foo<>
COURT- WHETHER A COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO MAKE ORDERS TO BIND A PARTY THAT WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD
“A court has no jurisdiction to make orders to bind a party that was not given opportunity to be heard by the court before issuing the orders. See Biyu Vs Ibrahim (2006) 8 NWLR (part 981) 1 and Nnaemeka Vs Chukwuogor (2007) 5 NWLR (part 1026) 60.” PER T. Y. HASSAN, J.C.A<foo< p=””></foo<>
JUDGEMENT OR ORDER OF COURT- EFFECT OF A JUDGMENT OR ORDER OF COURT MADE AGAINST A NECESSARY PARTY IN HIS ABSENCE
“Any judgment made with an order against a necessary and desirable party behind its back will be of no avail. It was a party whose presence before the court as a defendant was apt to enable the court effectually and completely adjudicate or settle all the questions involved in the matter. See N.U.R.T.W Vs Road Transport (2012) 1 SCNJ 330 at 333.” PER T. Y. HASSAN, J.C.A<foo< p=””></foo<>
SERVICE OF PROCESSES OF COURT – IMPORTANCE OF SERVICE OF COURT PROCESSES
“One of the cardinal requirements of law, to vest a court with jurisdiction to hear a case is that the parties or persons to be affected by its decision must be duly summoned or served with the processes of court and given opportunities to be heard. This is an inalienable constitutional right of every person under section 36 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) – Ayoade Vs Spring Bank Plc (2014) 4 NWLR (part 1396) 93 at 100.” PER T. Y. HASSAN, J.C.A<foo< p=””></foo<>
REVOCATION OF A RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY – ANY REVOCATION OF A RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY MUST BY SIGNIFIED BY A PUBLIC OFFICER AUTHORISED BY THE GOVERNOR OR MINISTER
“By virtue of section 28(6) of the Land Use Act, any revocation of a right of occupancy shall be signified under the hand of a public officer duly authorised in that behalf by the Governor in respect of state and (Minster in respect of Federal) and notice thereof shall be given to the holder – Mulima Vs Usman (2014) 16 NWLR (part 1432) 160 at 175.” PER T. Y. HASSAN, J.C.A<foo< p=””></foo<>
POWER OF REVOCATION – PRECONDITION FOR THE EXERCISE OF POWER OF REVOCATION
“One of the preconditions for the exercise of power of revocation is that it must be shown clearly to be for overriding public interest. See R.C.O. and S Ltd Vs Rainbow net Ltd (2014) 5 NWLR (part 1401) 516 at 524.” PER T. Y. HASSAN, J.C.A<foo< p=””></foo<>
SERVICE OF PROCESSES OF COURT – IMPORTANCE OF SERVICE OF COURT PROCESSES
“One of the cardinal requirements of law, to vest a court with jurisdiction to hear a case is that the parties or persons to be affected by its decision must be duly summoned or served with the processes of court and given opportunities to be heard. This is an inalienable constitutional right of every person under section 36 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) – Ayoade Vs Spring Bank Plc (2014) 4 NWLR (part 1396) 93 at 100.” PER T. Y. HASSAN, J.C.A NECESSARY PARTIES – MEANING OF NECESSARY PARTIES
“Necessary parties are those who are not only interested in the subject matter of the proceedings, but also who, in their absence, the proceedings could not be fairly dealt with. In other words the question to be settled in the action between the parties cannot be properly settled unless they are parties to the action instituted by the plaintiff. See Green Vs Green (1987) 3 NWLR (part 61) 480, Mobil Oil Plc Vs Denr Ltd (2004) XNWLR (part 853) 142, Lawal Vs PGD (Nig.) Ltd. (2001) 17 NWLR (part 742) 393 and Obasanjo Vs Yusuf (2004) 9 NWLR (part 877) 144.”PER T. Y. HASSAN, J.C.A JUDGEMENT OR ORDER OF COURT- EFFECT OF A JUDGMENT OR ORDER OF COURT MADE AGAINST A NECESSARY PARTY IN HIS ABSENCE
“Any judgment made with an order against a necessary and desirable party behind its back will be of no avail. It was a party whose presence before the court as a defendant was apt to enable the court effectually and completely adjudicate or settle all the questions involved in the matter. See N.U.R.T.W Vs Road Transport (2012) 1 SCNJ 330 at 333.” PER T. Y. HASSAN, J.C.A COURT- WHETHER A COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO MAKE ORDERS TO BIND A PARTY THAT WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD
“A court has no jurisdiction to make orders to bind a party that was not given opportunity to be heard by the court before issuing the orders. See Biyu Vs Ibrahim (2006) 8 NWLR (part 981) 1 and Nnaemeka Vs Chukwuogor (2007) 5 NWLR (part 1026) 60.” PER T. Y. HASSAN, J.C.A REVOCATION OF A RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY – ANY REVOCATION OF A RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY MUST BY SIGNIFIED BY A PUBLIC OFFICER AUTHORISED BY THE GOVERNOR OR MINISTER
“By virtue of section 28(6) of the Land Use Act, any revocation of a right of occupancy shall be signified under the hand of a public officer duly authorised in that behalf by the Governor in respect of state and (Minster in respect of Federal) and notice thereof shall be given to the holder – Mulima Vs Usman (2014) 16 NWLR (part 1432) 160 at 175.” PER T. Y. HASSAN, J.C.A REVOCATION OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY – POWER OF THE GOVERNOR OF A STATE OR MINISTER TO REVOKE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
“Section 28(5)(a) and (b) of the Land Use Act 1978 is to the effect that a Governor of a State (Minister at Federal) has power to revoke a Certificate of Occupancy for a breach of the terms which is deemed to be contained in the Certificate of Occupancy N.E.W. Ltd Vs Denap Ltd (1997) 10 NWLR (part 525) 481 at 487 – 488.” PER T. Y. HASSAN, J.C.A POWER OF REVOCATION – PRECONDITION FOR THE EXERCISE OF POWER OF REVOCATION
“One of the preconditions for the exercise of power of revocation is that it must be shown clearly to be for overriding public interest. See R.C.O. and S Ltd Vs Rainbow net Ltd (2014) 5 NWLR (part 1401) 516 at 524.” PER T. Y. HASSAN, J.C.A ESTOPPEL BY SILENCE OR STANDING BY –PRINCIPLE OF ESTOPPEL BY SILENCE OR STANDING BY
“The general rule as to estoppel by silence or standing by was laid down in Ramsden Vs Dyson (1886) L.R.I.H.L 129 where it was held that “if a stranger begins to build on land supposing it to be his own and the real owner perceiving his mistake abstains from setting him right and leaves him to preserve in his error a court of equity will not afterwards allow the real owner to assert his title to the land”. This case was cited with authority by the Supreme Court in Yusuff Vs Dada (supra). Initeni Vs Efamo (2001) 10 NWLR (part 720) 1”.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)Evidence Act 2011Land use Act 1978
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT