Legalpedia Citation: (2023-07) Legalpedia 46848 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

CALABAR JUDICIAL DIVISION

Tue Jul 4, 2023

Suit Number: CA/C/168/2016

CORAM

Muhammed Lawal Shuaibu JCA

Abubakar Mahmud Talba JCA

Mohammed Danjuma JCA

PARTIES

1. MADAM EKE BASSEY ENEOBONG
2. CHIEF EKPO OYO EKPE
3. MR. EDET EFFIONG
4. ELDER (HON.) BASSEY OKON BASSEY

APPELLANTS

FEDERAL MINISTRY OF LANDS HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

AREAS OF LAW: APPEAL, EVIDENCE, LAND, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Res before the trial court (High Court of Cross-River State) is the land, situate at Ikot Eneobong in Calabar Municipality shown edged red in survey plan No: JUB/CR/002/16 (LD) dated 18th February, 2016. The claimants claimed that the land was a family land and the government revoked their right of occupancy without paying the necessary compensation and without adhering to the rules regarding revocation of rights of occupancy.

The Respondents on the other hand claimed that the land in question and the necessary compensation was paid to the communal heads and hence the claimants have no right to the land in question and therefore are not in a position to make demands regarding the land.

The trial court ruled in favour of the Defendants (Respondents). The appellants were dissatisfied by the decision hence the instant appeal.

HELD

Appeal dismissed

ISSUES

1. Whether the learned trial Judge was right to hold that the appellants do not have locus standi to maintain this suit?
2. Whether the learned trial Judge was right to hold that the land in dispute was 49.9 hectares of communal land owned by Ikot Eneobong village, and not a family land owned by the appellants?
3. Whether the learned trial Judge was right to hold that there was a valid and lawful compulsory acquisition of the land in dispute?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

LOCUS STANDI – WHEN A PERSON IS DEEMED TO HAVE LOCUS STANDI – TESTS OF INTEREST

A plaintiff will have locus standi only if he has a special right or alternatively, if he can show that he has sufficient or special interest in the performance of the duty sought to be enforced or where his interest is adversely affected. In MARADESA VS MIL. GOV. OYO STATE (1985) 3 NWLR (PT.7) 125, it was held that the term interest should be regarded as including any connection, association or interrelation between the applicant and the matter to which the application relates. One other test of sufficient interest is whether the party seeking for the redness or remedy will suffer any injury or hardship arising from the litigation. If the Court is satisfied that he will so suffer, then he must be heard as he is entitled to be heard. Thus, a person is said to have an interest in a thing when he has rights, advantages, duties, liabilities, losses or the like connected with it, whether present or future, ascertained or potential, provided that the possibility is not too remote, and the question of remoteness, depends upon the purpose which the interest is to serve. And the fact that the person may not succeed does not have anything to bring the action. See A. G. KADUNA VS HASSAN (1985) 2 NWLR (PT.8) 483, IMADE VS MIL. ADMIN. EDO STATE (2001) 6 NWLR (PT.709) 478 and ODIMEGWA VS IBEZIM (2019) 9 NWLR (PT. 1677) 244 @ 258. – Per M. L. Shuaibu, JCA

 

LOCUS STANDI – HOW TO ASCERTAIN IF A PLAINTIFF HAS LOCUS STANDI

Furthermore, the question whether or not a plaintiff has a locus standi in a suit is determinable from a totality of all the averments in his statement of claim. Therefore, in dealing with the locus standi of a plaintiff, it is his statement of claim alone that has to be carefully scrutinized with a view to ascertaining whether or not it has disclosed his interest and how such interest has arisen in the subject matter of the action. See CITEC INTERNATIONAL ESTATE LTD VS FRANCIS (2021) 5 NWLR (PT.1768) 148 @ 207-208. – Per M. L. Shuaibu, JCA

LAND – WHO CAN INITIATE AN ACTION AGAINST INTERFERENCE WITH FAMILY PROPERTY/LAND

In ODIMEGWA VS IBEZIM (Supra) the apex Court has held that an action in respect of family land property, a member of a family has the capacity to sue to protect family property. Thus, any member of a family whose interest is threatened by wrongful interference with the family property can sue to protect his interest. He can commence the action with or without the consent of other members of the family. However, I have stated elsewhere in this judgment that a common ground is that the plaintiff must have some justiciable interest which may be affected by the action or that he will suffer injury or damage as a result of the action. In the final analysis, whether the plaintiff has sufficient justiciable interest or sufferance of injury or damages depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. See CENTRE FOR OIL POLLUTION WATCH VS N.N.P.C (2019) 5 NWLR (PT.1666) 518. – Per M. L. Shuaibu, JCA

AGGRIEVED PERSON – DESCRIPTION OF AN AGGRIEVED PERSON IN ADJUDICATION

It is settled that a person aggrieved must be a man who suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced, which has wrongly deprived him something or wrongfully affected his title to some things. And since the land in dispute was donated by the Eneobong House council and not individual families in Ikot Eneobong, the individual families such as the appellants have no justiciable interest which may be affected by the action of the respondent and they suffer no injury or damage as a result of the action. – Per M. L. Shuaibu, JCA

LAND – DUTY OF A PLAINTIFF IN AN ACTION FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND

It is trite that a plaintiff has the duty in an action for declaration of title to adduce sufficient and credible evidence to establish the mode of acquisition of his title and must succeed on his own case and not on the weakness of the defence (if any), although he may take advantage of the defendant’s evidence where it supports his case after he might have proved his case as required by law. In ADAMU VS NIGERIAN AIRFORCE (2022) 5 NWLR (PT.1822) 159 @ 176-177, the Supreme Court has held that a consideration of the defendant’s case and the weakness of it does not arise until the plaintiff has led evidence showing, prima facie, that he has a title to the land.

The question is does the appellants as plaintiffs show prima facie that they have title to the land in dispute? I have stated that the appellants hinged their claim mainly on long possession and acts of ownership alone cannot ripen into ownership of a land and oust the right of a true owner. What I am saying is that where a party alleges acts of possession carried out on a piece of land in dispute in support of a claim of ownership and he fails to prove the ownership pleaded and claimed, the acts of the party on the land cease to be acts of possession but automatically become acts of trespass. See MOGAJI VS CADBURY (SUPRA) and OWHONDA VS EKPECHI (2003) 17 NWLR (PT.849) 326. – Per M. L. Shuaibu, JCA

GOVERNOR – POWERS OF THE GOVERNOR TO REVOKE A RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY AND THE CONDUCT OF THE GOVERNOR IN REVOKING A RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY

By virtue of Section 28 (1) of the Land Use Act, the Governor is empowered to revoke a right of occupancy for overriding Public interest. Although the Governor has the right and/or power to revoke a right of occupancy such power must be exercised with due compliance with the provisions of Land Use Act, particularly with regard to giving of adequate notice of revocation to the holder of the right of occupancy whose name and address are well known. See OLOMODA VS MUSTAPHA (2019) 6 NWLR (PT.1667) 36 @ 56. Also in CIL RISK & ASSET MANAGEMENT LTD VS EKITI STATE GOVERNMENT (2020) 12 NWLR (PT. 1738) 203 @ 277, the Supreme Court emphatically held that revocation of a right of occupancy or title to landed property is not just a mere executive or administrative act that can be done in secret or in any surreptitious manner and later conveyed in official government gazette. Thus, the title holder is not only entitled to the notice of proposed revocation with the public purpose for the revocation clearly spelt out therein, he is also entitled to be heard on the proposed revocation of his title. – Per M. L. Shuaibu, JCA

REVOCATION NOTICE – WHERE A REVOCATION NOTICE IS NOT SERVED IN A MANNER STIPULATED BY LAW

Section 44 of the Land Use Act stipulates that any notice required by the Act to be served on any person shall be effectively served on him.:

1. a) By delivering it to the person on whom it is to be served, or

1. b) By leaving it at the usual or last known place of abode of that person, or

1. c) By sending it in a pre-paid registered letter addressed to that person at his usual or last known place of abode.

By virtue of Section 44 of the Land Use Act above, a notice of occupancy shall be effectively and validly served as provided and failure to serve in the manner stipulated therein renders the revocation null and void. NIGERIAN ENGINEERING WORKS LTD VS DENAP LTD (2001) 18 NWLR (PT.746) 741, THE ADMINSTRATORS/EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF GEN. SANNI ABACHA VS EKE-SPIFF (2009) 7 NWLR (PT.1139) 97 and ONONUJU VS A. G. ANAMBRA STATE also reported in (1998) 11 NWLR (PT.573) 304. – Per M. L. Shuaibu, JCA

EVIDENCE – WHERE A WITNESS GIVES ON OATH TWO MATERIALLY INCONSISTENT EVIDENCE

The Supreme Court in EZEMBA VS IBENEME (2004) ALL FWLR (PT.223) 1786 @ 1816 has held that no witness who gives on oath two materially inconsistent evidence is entitled to the honour of credibility. Also, AYOOLA JSC, held in BASSIL VS FAJEBE 4 SCNJ 257 @ 269 that: –

“Parties are permitted to make inconsistent averments. However, it is not the law that parties are permitted to make inconsistent assertions on the same question of fact or adduce inconsistent evidence over one and the same issue. A party who adduces inconsistent evidence over the same issue damages his own case unless he can reconcile the apparent inconsistency.” – Per M. L. Shuaibu, JCA

CASES CITED

NIL

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Evidence Act
2. Land Use Act

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT