ABAYOMI OLALEKAN V. THE STATE
June 20, 2025W. T. EJUETAMI V MRS. BENEDICTA O. OLAIYA
June 20, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2001) Legalpedia (SC) 97177
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Dec 14, 2001
Suit Number: SC. 163/1997
CORAM
SALIHU MODIBBO ALFA BELGORE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MICHAEL EKUNDAYO OGUNDARE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
EMMANUEL OBIOMA OGWUEGBU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
A. I. IGUH – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
NIGERIA ENGINEERING WORKS LTD. APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The respondent’s certificate of occupancy was revoked without notice to him and another certificate was issued in favour of the appellant before the alleged revocation. The two lower courts gave judgment in favour of the respondent.
HELD
The appeal was dismissed.
ISSUES
1. Whether the Court of Appeal was not in error for affirming the judgment of the Rivers State High Court which adjudicated over the instant proceedings in which the Hon. Attorney-General of Rivers State was not proper party to be sued and in which the proper party is Governor of Rivers State was omitted and if answered in the appellants favour, what is the consequence for determining such a serious dispute without the inclusion of the proper and necessary party?2. Having regard to the provisions of section 1 (2) (a) & (b) of Cap. 137 LFN 1990 i.e. Federal Military Government (Supremacy and Enforcement of Powers) Act. Whether the High Court and indeed the Court Appeal had any jurisdiction to inquire into the act of revocation of plaintiff’s Certificate of occupancy done pursuant to an Act of National Assembly to wit the Land Use Act Cap 202 LFN 1990″3. Having regard to the foregoing i.e. the non-joinder of proper and indeed necessary parties and the ouster of jurisdiction of the High Court by Cap 137 LFN, could it be said, regard being had to section 5 (2) of the Land Use Act, that the revocation of plaintiff’s title was illegal null and void and the title in appellant’s name invalid?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
REVOCATION OF RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY – VALIDITY OF
The powers of the Governor to revoke any right of occupancy must be exercised in the overriding interest of the public and more importantly the holder of the right of occupancy being revoked must be notified in advance of the revocation. The notice to the holder must state the reason or reasons for the revocation and this will give the holder the opportunity to make any representation he or she wishes to make. Where the notice was not given or notice given was inadequate or not given in compliance with the provisions of the Act, the act or the exercise of revocation under S.28 of the Act will be null and void – Kalgo J.S.C
OUSTER CLAUSES – ATTITUDE OF COURT
The courts jealously guard their jurisdiction and any signal of ouster of jurisdiction in any statute must be scrupulously examined and would not be construed, without any express provision, to extend beyond its ordinary meaning.…This is also true even where the validity of the ouster provision is not in dispute because the court has the jurisdiction to determine whether the action complained of is one that the ouster provision was intended to protect- Kalgo J.S.C
CASES CITED
1. A.G. of the Federation v. Sode (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 128) 5002. A.G. Bendel State v. Agbofodor (1999) 2 NWLR (pt. 592) 476.3. N.P.A. v. Panalpina World Transport (Nig.) Ltd. & Ors. (1973) 6 NSCC 282.4. Osho & Anor. v. Foreign Finance Corp. & Anor. (1991) 4 NWLR 157
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. The Land Use Act2. Federal Military Government (Supremacy and Enforcement of Powers) Act Cap. 137 LFN 1990
