MALLAM BALA MUAZU MALLAM BAWA V. ALHAJI SULEIMAN ALI

Legalpedia Citation: (2024-06) Legalpedia 10917 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

Holden at Gombe

Fri Jun 7, 2024

Suit Number: CA/G/27/2023

CORAM

Ali Abubakar Babandi Gumel Justice of the Court of Appeal

Ugochukwu Anthony Ogakwu Justice of the Court of Appeal

Mohammed Danjuma Justice of the Court of Appeal

PARTIES

MALLAM BALA MUAZU MALLAM BAWA

APPELLANTS

ALHAJI SULEIMAN ALI

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

AREAS OF LAW: APPEAL, EVIDENCE, JUDGMENT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, PROPERTY AND CONVEYANCING

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The origin of this case is a dispute over the possession and recovery of premises located at Sarkin Zango Murtala, Lawan Musa Ward, Gashua, Yobe State. The Respondent purchased the property from the Appellant’s siblings and issued statutory notices to the Appellant, who was in possession, demanding that he vacate the premises. The Appellant failed to comply, prompting the Respondent to file a lawsuit in the District Court of Yobe State, seeking an order for vacant possession.

A full hearing was conducted at the District Court, with both parties presenting testimonial and documentary evidence. The District Court ruled that the Respondent lacked the locus standi to bring the action and dismissed the case without evaluating the evidence to determine whether the Respondent was entitled to the reliefs sought.

Dissatisfied with the District Court’s decision, the Respondent appealed to the High Court of Yobe State. The High Court upheld the Respondent’s locus standi, evaluated the evidence, overturned the District Court’s decision, and ruled in favor of the Respondent, ordering the Appellant to vacate the property immediately.

Unhappy with the High Court’s decision, the Appellant sought and obtained permission to appeal to this Court, leading to the current appeal.

HELD

Appeal dismissed

ISSUES

Whether or not having regards to the record of proceeding of the lower Court the respondent has locus standi to institute an action against the appellant for a recovery of premises whereas he was neither party to the sales transactions nor was he his tenant. Distilled from ground one of the appellants grounds of Appeal?
Whether or not the lower Court was right when it fail to consider the privity of contract between the appellant and the respondent. Distilled from ground two of the appellant’s grounds of appeal?
Whether or not having regards to the case at hand there is a tenancy agreement between the appellant and the respondent to warrant the respondent issue notice to quit and notice of owner’s intention to apply and recover possession. Distilled from ground three of the appellants grounds of appeal?
Whether or not having regards to the testimonies of PW2 and PW3 who sold the property of the appellant and DW2 long ago can validly transfer good title to the respondent by way of sell [sale]. Distilled from ground four of the appellants grounds of Appeal?
Whether or not failure of the lower Court to evaluate the testimonies of the witnesses as contained in the record of proceeding has occasion[ed] miscarriage of justice to the appellant?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

COURT – WHERE THE TRIAL COURT AVOIDS ITS PRIMARY DUTY OF EVALUATING EVIDENCE

The trial Court decided the action exclusively on the Respondent’s locus standi, and having held that the Respondent did not have locus standi, it did not go further to evaluate the evidence adduced and ascribe probative value thereto. So, in the strict sense, it was not a case of improper evaluation of the evidence by the lower Court, it was rather a shirking of its primary duty of evaluating the evidence. In such circumstances and in so far as it does not involve the credibility of witnesses, an appellate Court can evaluate the evidence and ascribe probative value thereto in order to do justice between the parties: IMAH vs. OKOGBE (1993) LPELR (1497) 1 at 26, OGUNLEYE vs. ONI (1990) 2 NWLR (PT 135) 745 ANYAFULU vs. MEKA (2014) LPELR (22336) 1 at 14-15 and UMESIE vs. ONUAGULUCHI (1995) LPELR (3368) 1 at 22-23. – Per U. A. Ogakwu, JCA

COURT – WHERE AN APPELLATE COURT CAN EVALUATE EVIDENCE AND ASCRIBE PROBATIVE VALUE THERETO

LOCUS STANDI – MEANING OF LOCUS STANDI

Now, the term locus standi denotes the legal capacity to institute proceedings in a Court of law. It is often used interchangeably with terms like standing, or title to sue. For a person to have locus standi, he must show that his civil rights and obligations have been or are in danger of being infringed and that he has sufficient legal interest in seeking redress in Court. See ADENUGA vs. ODUMERU (2003) 8 NWLR (PT 821) 163 and ETALUKU vs. NBC PLC (2004) 15 NWLR (PT 896) 370 at 398. In determining whether a plaintiff has locus standi, it is the cause of action that has to be examined: OLORIODE vs. OYEBI (1984) 5 SC 1 at 28; a cause of action being the entire set of circumstances giving rise to an enforceable claim. – Per U. A. Ogakwu, JCA

LOCUS STANDI – WHEN A PERSON IS DEEMED LOCUS STANDI

LANDLORD – WHETHER A PURCHASER CAN EXERCISE THE RIGHT TO RECOVER PREMISES AS LANDLORD

The same is also true with the contention that in the absence of a tenancy relationship, that the Respondent had no right to issue statutory notices under the Recovery of Premises Law. I iterate that the unchallenged finding of the lower Court is that the Respondent is a landlord within the meaning of the Recovery of Premises Law. As such a landlord, and in keeping with the rule of law, the Respondent is enjoined by law to follow the procedure laid down by law for recovery of premises. Whether the Respondent would succeed in any action he takes in obeisance to the procedure under the Recovery of Premises Law is a totally different consideration and it has absolutely nothing to do with his right as landlord to pursue any remedies in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Recovery of Premises Law. See COKER vs. ADETAYO (1996) LPELR (879) 1 at 7-8, IHENACHO vs. UZOCHUKWU (1997) LPELR (1460) 1 at 17-18 and DERIBE vs. ABUBAKAR (2021) LPELR (56154) 1 at 17. – Per U. A. Ogakwu, JCA

MISCONCEPTION – WHERE A PARTY MISCONCEIVES THE CAUSE OF ACTION

The Appellant’s contention on privity of contract and the entitlement of the Respondent to issue statutory notices on him in the absence of a tenancy relationship once again brings out the truism that where there has been a misconception as to the cause of action being ventilated, then any argument flowing from that misconception will undoubtedly be fallacious since it will be based on a wrong premise. See UDENGWU vs. UZUEGBU (2003) 13 NWLR (PT 836) 136 at 132, LADEJOBI vs. OGUNTAYO (2004) 7 SC (PT 1) 159 at 169 and CHUKWUKELO vs. FIDELITY BANK (2020) LPELR (51632) 1 at 25-26. – Per U. A. Ogakwu, JCA