GOLDEN VICTOR NANGIBO VS UCHE OKAFOR & ORS - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

GOLDEN VICTOR NANGIBO VS UCHE OKAFOR & ORS

ANDONG ADAKE VS ADAMU AKUN
June 13, 2025
ALHAJI ABDULRAHMAN AKANBI VS. MALLAM WASIU SALAWU
June 13, 2025
ANDONG ADAKE VS ADAMU AKUN
June 13, 2025
ALHAJI ABDULRAHMAN AKANBI VS. MALLAM WASIU SALAWU
June 13, 2025
Show all

GOLDEN VICTOR NANGIBO VS UCHE OKAFOR & ORS

Legalpedia Citation: (2003) Legalpedia (SC) 86634

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Fri Jun 27, 2003

Suit Number: SC. 139/1999

CORAM


I. L. KUTIGI

U. MOHAMMED

CHRISTOPHER MITCHEL CHUKWUMA-ENEH JUSTICE SUPREME COURT.

U. A. KALGO

S. U. ONU


PARTIES


GOLDEN VICTOR NANGIBO APPELLANTS


RESPONDENTS


AREA(S) OF LAW



SUMMARY OF FACTS

A Deed of lease for 99 years was granted to Marcus Ezeuba Nwokenta he later assigned the residue of his lease to the plaintiffs. The land was fully developed before the civil war. After the war, when the Plaintiff went to pay property rates, they learnt for the first time that the property had been sold to one Golden Victor Nangibo.?


HELD


 The court dismissed this appeal with costs assessed at N10,000.00 to the Respondents.?


ISSUES


Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to determine the validity of the State Lands (Cancellation of Leases) Edict No. 15 of 1972?Was the Court of Appeal correct in holding that the agreement to sell the property in dispute by the Government of Rivers State to the Appellant was concluded on 9th December, 1982 and not on 26th November, 1982 as pleaded, and found by the learned trial Judge?


RATIONES DECIDENDI


ON INTERPREATATION OF STATUTES WHICH PURPORT TO DEPRIVE CITIZENS OF THEIR PROPRIETARY INTEREST


“A recognised and acceptable canon of interpretation of statutes is that statutes, which purport to deprive citizens of their proprietary interest as well as acquired rights, are always interpreted strictly. In effect, such statutes are construed fortissime contra proferentes.”


CONTRACTS – WHETHER A NON-PARTY CAN SEEK CANCELLATION OF SAME


“It needs to be stressed in this respect that one cardinal principle of the law of contract is that it is only a party to a contract that can seek a cancellation of it for one cause or the other… A non party to a contract cannot ask for its cancellation or abrogation.”


CASES CITED


1. University of Ibadan V. Adamolekan (1967) 1 All NLR 213.2. Uwaifo V. Attorney General, Bendel State and others (1982) 7 SC. 1243. Savannah Bank PLC V. Ibrahim (2000) 6 NWLR (Part 662) 6014. Negbenebor V. Negbenebor (1971) 1 All NLR 210 at 270 -2715. Ikpeazu V. ABC Ltd. (1965) NMLR 374.6. Bello V. Diocesan Synod of Lagos & Ors. (1973) 3 SC. 103 at 130: (1973) 8 NSCC 137 at page 1497. Bownman South Shields V. (Thames Street) Clearance Order (1932) 2 KB 621


STATUTES REFERRED TO


1979 Constitution?


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

Comments are closed.