MARTIN ONYEWUCHI IWUNZE V FEDERAL HOUSING AUTHORITY & ORS

Legalpedia Citation: (2025-07) Legalpedia 84187 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Holden at Abuja

Fri Jul 4, 2025

Suit Number: SC.CV/1169/2021

CORAM

Uwani Musa Abba Aji-Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa-Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Emmanuel Akomaye Agim-Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Chidi Nwaoma Uwa-Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Obande Festus Ogbuinya-Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

PARTIES

MARTIN ONYEWUCHI IWUNZE

APPELLANTS

1. FEDERAL HOUSING AUTHORITY
2. GOVERNMENT OF IMO STATE
3. ATTORNEY- GENERAL OF IMO STATE
4. COMMISSIONER FOR LAND, SURVEY & URBAN PLANNING, IMO STATE

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

CIVIL PROCEDURE, JOINDER OF PARTIES, NECESSARY PARTIES, NON-JOINDER, FAIR HEARING, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, LAND LAW, COMPULSORY ACQUISITION, NATURAL JUSTICE, JURISDICTION, NULLITY, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, PLEADINGS, PROPERTY LAW, VESTED RIGHTS, APPEAL

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Irette community claimed ownership from time immemorial of land known as “Okohia” situated at Irette in Owerri West Local Government Area of Imo State. The community exercised acts of ownership by farming and planting economic trees on the land without hindrance.

The Appellant alleged that the land was purportedly acquired by the second respondent (Imo State Government) and purportedly allocated to the Federal Housing Authority (the first respondent) without proper notice of revocation for acquisition for overriding public interest and without payment of compensation. Subsequently, the second respondent revoked the allocation to the first respondent and reallocated another land to it. The Appellant later noticed acts of trespass by allottees of the land made by the first respondent.

On May 30, 2013, the Appellant, acting in a representative capacity for the Irette community, filed a Writ of Summons at the High Court of Imo State in Suit No. HOW/379/2013. In his statement of claim, the Appellant sought three reliefs against the second, third, and fourth respondents (Imo State Government, Attorney-General of Imo State, and Commissioner for Land, Survey & Urban Planning) jointly and severally: (a) a declaration that he was entitled to statutory right of occupancy of the land known as “Okohia”; (b) a declaration that no valid acquisition of the land had been effected by the defendants; and (c) perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from further entry into the land or carrying out acts inconsistent with the claimant’s interest and rights in the land.

Notably, the Appellant did not join the Federal Housing Authority (first respondent) as a party to the suit, even though his pleadings disclosed that the Imo State Government had allocated the land to the Federal Housing Authority, which in turn had allocated portions to other persons.

The second, third, and fourth respondents filed a joint statement of defence denying liability and claiming proper revocation of the land and non-revocation of the allocation to the first respondent.

At trial, the Appellant called one witness (CW1), while the second to fourth respondents fielded one witness (DW1). Numerous documents (Exhibits A to M1) were tendered by the parties. On April 18, 2018, the trial court (per F. I. Duroha-Igwe, J.) delivered judgment in favor of the Appellant, granting all the reliefs sought.

Subsequently, on becoming aware of the judgment, the Federal Housing Authority (first respondent) filed an application on July 22, 2019, seeking leave to appeal against the trial court’s judgment as a party having an interest in the land—the subject matter of the judgment. The Court of Appeal granted the application.

On October 18, 2019, the first respondent filed a five-ground Notice of Appeal before the Court of Appeal. On September 21, 2021, the Court of Appeal, Owerri Division (Coram: A. O. Lokulo-Sodipe, O. A. Adefope-Okojie and A. A. Wamba, JJCA) in Appeal No. CA/OW/6/2020, delivered a unanimous judgment allowing the appeal. The Court of Appeal held that the first respondent was a necessary party whose non-joinder rendered the trial court’s judgment a nullity. The Court of Appeal set aside the trial court’s decision and remitted the case to the Chief Judge of Imo State for reassignment to another judge for a fresh trial de novo with the first respondent to be added as the fourth defendant.

Dissatisfied with this decision, the Appellant filed a three-ground Notice of Appeal on November 29, 2021, to the Supreme Court, seeking to set aside the Court of Appeal’s decision and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument. The appeal was heard on April 28, 2025.

HELD

1. The appeal was dismissed.
2. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal which set aside the trial court’s judgment and ordered a retrial.
3. The court held that the first respondent (Federal Housing Authority) was a necessary party to the suit whose presence was indispensable to the constitution of the suit and without whom no effective order could be passed.
4. The court held that the Appellant knew from the inception of the case that the disputed land had been allocated to the first respondent by the Imo State Government, and that the first respondent had in turn allocated portions to other persons.
5. The court held that the first respondent had acquired a vested interest/right in the disputed land which could not be defeated except in accordance with law.
6. The court held that the failure to join the first respondent as a party denied it the opportunity to present its side of the story and defend its interest in the land, thereby violating its constitutional right to fair hearing under Section 36(1) of the Constitution.
7. The court held that where a party’s inviolable right to fair hearing is flouted, no matter the quantum of fair-mindedness, dexterity, artistry, and objectivity injected into the proceeding, it will be mired in the quicksand of nullity.
8. The court held that the trial court’s decision, which failed to accommodate the first respondent, was a flagrant defilement of its inalienable right to fair hearing as guaranteed by the Constitution.
9. The court held that when there is a denial of the right to fair hearing, the only order that can be made on appeal is one for retrial or rehearing to enable the affected party to be properly heard.
10. The court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s order remitting the Appellant’s suit to the Chief Judge of Imo State for reassignment to another judge for hearing de novo with the first respondent to be added as a party (fourth defendant).
11. The parties were ordered to bear their respective costs.

ISSUES

1. Whether the non-joinder of the 1st Respondent as a party in this suit adversely and genuinely affected the 1st Respondent and renders the judgment of the trial Court a nullity?
2. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right to have set aside the judgment of the trial Court when failure to join a necessary party does not render any judgment therein a nullity.?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

DEFINITION OF A PARTY:

“A party is a person by or against whom a legal action is sought and whose name is designated on the record as a plaintiff or a defendant.” – Per OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, JSC

DEFINITION OF PRIVY AND CLASSES OF PRIVIES:

“A privy is ‘A person having legal interest of privity in any action, matter or property; a person who is privity with another’. In law, parties include privies which are classified into three: (1) Privies in blood (as ancestor and heir) (2) Privies in law (as testator and executor; intestate and administrator) and (3) Privies in estate (as vendor and purchaser, lessor and lessee). In law, parties to an action embrace privy in estate.” – Per OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, JSC

DEFINITION OF NECESSARY PARTIES:

“Necessary parties are those who are not only interested in the subject matter of the proceedings but who also in their absence, proceedings could not be fairly dealt with. In other words, the questions to be settled in the action between the existing parties must be a question which cannot be properly settled unless they are parties to the action instituted by the plaintiff.” – Per OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, JSC (citing OPUTA, JSC in Green v. Green)

READING PLEADINGS HOLISTICALLY:

“The law commands the Court to read pleadings holistically in order to garner a flowing story or gist of a party’s case. Pleading is the legally-accepted barometer to gauge the necessity for joinder of a party. Besides, in the firmament of procedural law, issues are joined in the pleading. An issue is joined on a particular fact, necessitating its proof, when its assertion is disputed by an opposing party.” – Per OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, JSC

DEFINITION AND NATURE OF VESTED INTEREST:

“A vested right is a right held by somebody in something to his advantage and interest. A vested right accrues to the owner or holder who has it for keeps as the allodial owner. An accrued vested interest is completely and definitely settled on its beneficiary and cannot be defeated by a private person save in accordance with the law and for public purpose.” – Per OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, JSC

NATURE AND PURPOSE OF RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING:

“The right to fair hearing in this regard is, totally, divorced from the success of the case. It is a legal mechanism which creates an opportunity for a party to ventilate his perceived and nursed grievances in the same manner as his adversary. It is of no moment whether the first respondent’s case or defence will be doomed or greeted with success. That is not the raison d’etre for the propagation, preservation and entrenchment of the fair hearing principle in the Constitution, as amended, the grundnorm of all laws. Fair hearing, which traces its paternity to divine origin, is sacrosanct and must be observed in every cause.” – Per OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, JSC

CONSEQUENCE OF BREACH OF FAIR HEARING:

“It is an elementary law that where a party’s inviolable right to fair hearing is flouted, as in this case, no matter the quantum of fair-mindedness, dexterity, artistry and objectivity injected into the proceeding hosting the breach, it will be mired in the quicksand of nullity.” – Per OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, JSC

DEFINITION AND EFFECT OF NULLITY:

“The case law has characterised nullity as: ‘Nothing; no proceeding; an act or proceeding in a case which the opposite party may treat as though it had not taken place; or which has absolutely no legal force or effect’. The dismal effect of a nullity is far-reaching. If a decision or proceeding is plagued by nullity, it is void and taken as it was never given or made. Moreover, such a null decision or proceeding, in the view of the law, bestows no enforceable right on its beneficiary.” – Per OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, JSC

COURT’S DUTY REGARDING NULL ORDERS:

“The bounden duty of a Court is to, ex debito justitiae, set aside a null order in that it does not exist in law.” – Per OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, JSC

APPROPRIATE REMEDY FOR BREACH OF FAIR HEARING:

“Once there is such a denial of the said right {right to fair hearing} the only order that could be made on appeal is one for re-trial or re-hearing. This is to enable the appellant to be properly heard.” – Per OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, JSC (citing NWEZE, JSC in Kalu v. State)

TEST FOR DETERMINING A NECESSARY PARTY:

“One of the cardinal reasons a party can be made a necessary party is if the judgment of the Court or Tribunal will affect him/her or the decision of the Court will be binding on him/her. A necessary party is one whose presence is indispensable to the constitution of the suit, against whom the relief is sought, and without whom no effective order that would be obeyed or implemented can be passed.” – Per CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, JSC

NECESSARY PARTY FOR EFFECTUAL AND COMPLETE DETERMINATION:

“A necessary party is that person whose presence is essential for the effectual and complete determination of the issues before the Court. It is a party in the absence of whom the whole claim cannot be effectually and completely determined.” – Per CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, JSC (citing OKORO, JSC in Okwu & Anor v. Umeh & Ors)

EFFECT OF NON-JOINDER OF NECESSARY PARTY ON EFFECTIVENESS OF DECREE:

“It is therefore my view that the 1st Respondent qualified as a necessary party who ought to have been joined in the suit as he had a vested interest in the land. In other words, the questions to be settled in the case between the existing parties could not have been properly settled unless the necessary party, of whom the 1st Respondent was, were made parties as he would be bound by the outcome of the trial. It would not be possible to pass an effective decree in the absence of the 1st Respondent. Without his presence, any order made in trial Court and indeed, this appeal will be futile.” – Per CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, JSC

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

• Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)
• Section 36(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)
• Order 13 Rule 16(1) of the Imo State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017
• Land Use Act
• Compulsory Acquisition Edicts 1 and 3 of 1976 (Imo State)

OTHER CITATIONS

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT