CORAM

---

Abdullahi Mahmud Bayero Justice of the Court of Appeal

Sybil Onyeji Nwaka Gbagi Justice of the Court of Appeal

Muslim Sule Hassan Justice of the Court of Appeal

---

PARTIES

---

MUSTAPHA DAN DAURA

APPELLANTS 

---

1. DELE FAJEMIROKUN

2. MINISTRY OF LAND, SURVEY AND COUNTRY PLANNING KADUNA STATE

RESPONDENT(S)

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

LIMITATION OF ACTION, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, LAND LAW, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, APPEAL, NOTICE OF APPEAL, JURISDICTION, PRELIMINARY OBJECTION, TRESPASS, ADVERSE POSSESSION, PLEADINGS, EVIDENCE LAW

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This case concerns an appeal against the decision of the Kaduna State High Court delivered on July 17, 2018, wherein the trial judge dismissed the Appellant’s objection that the 1st Respondent’s claims were statute-barred under the limitation law. The dispute centers on ownership of property situated at No. 5 AH Akilu Road, Kaduna.

The 1st Respondent (Dele Fajemirokun) filed a suit on February 6, 2017, claiming to be the rightful owner of the property based on a deed of assignment dated 1974, whereby his father purchased the land from one Alh Tanko Abdullahi Zaria. According to the 1st Respondent’s case, he had been outside Nigeria since 1982 and only returned in 2009. During his absence, he had left the property in the hands of caretakers who later abandoned it. Upon his return in 2009, he investigated the file at the Ministry of Land, Survey and Country Planning and found only the original deed of assignment. However, when he visited the property, he discovered the Appellant (Mustapha Dan Daura) was in occupation of the land.

The Appellant, as 1st Defendant at the trial court, claimed he had purchased the land from Madunka Real Estate Limited, who in turn had purchased it from Cuvest Investment Limited, and possessed a Certificate of Occupancy issued by the 2nd Respondent (Ministry of Land, Survey and Country Planning, Kaduna State). The Appellant filed a preliminary objection arguing that the 1st Respondent’s suit was statute-barred under the Limitation Law, having lost possession of the property since the 1990s when his caretakers abandoned it.

The trial court dismissed the Appellant’s preliminary objection, holding that the 1st Respondent’s suit was not statute-barred because the cause of action only accrued in 2009 when the 1st Respondent became aware of the Appellant’s adverse possession upon his return to Nigeria. The 1st Respondent also raised a preliminary objection at the Court of Appeal, challenging the competence of the appeal on grounds that no proper Notice of Appeal had been filed.

 

---

HELD

---

1. The preliminary objection challenging the competence of the appeal for lack of a proper Notice of Appeal was dismissed, as the 1st Respondent failed to point to specific records supporting the contention, and a Notice of Appeal was found on the record.

2. The main appeal was dismissed.

3. The Court held that the trial court was correct in finding that the 1st Respondent’s suit was not statute-barred.

4. The Court found that the cause of action accrued in 2009 when the 1st Respondent became aware of the Appellant’s adverse possession, not in the 1990s when the caretakers abandoned the property.

5. Since the action was commenced in 2017 (8 years after discovery in 2009), it was within the 10-year limitation period prescribed by Section 4 of the Kaduna State Limitation Law.

6. The ruling of the lower court delivered on July 17, 2018, was affirmed.

7. Costs of N100,000.00 were awarded against the Appellant in favor of the 1st Respondent.

 

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he held that the 1st Respondent’s suit is not statute-barred.

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

---

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

• Court of Appeal Act

• Court of Appeal Rules

• Kaduna State Limitation Law

• Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT