CORAM

---

UWAIS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN

AGBAJE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

AKPATA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

UWAKWE

APPELLANTS 

---

ODOGWU

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

LAND LAW – APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER OVER LAND

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellant claimed title to the land in dispute and applied for appointment of the receiver of the rents from the structures built on the land by the respondent.

 

---

HELD

---

The court held that the appellant was not entitled to be granted the relief and that the court of appeal was right in set aside the decision of the trial court appointing a receiver.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. In a case for declaration of title, damages for trespass and injunction, has the court jurisdiction to appoint a Receiver to manage, control and collect rents from buildings, and structures erected by one of the parties on the land in dispute pending the determination of the case?

2. Is it the law that in a case for declaration of title, damages for trespass and injunction, a Receiver should not be appointed to manage, control and collect rents from the buildings and structures erected on the land in dispute by the defendant pending the determination of the case on the ground that if the plaintiff succeeded in the case, he would be amply compensated with the said buildings and structures which would pass to him with the land?

3. Was the Court of Appeal right to have set aside the order of the High Court appointing Receivers in the above case when it was not shown that the High Court acted on wrong principles of law or had taken into consideration matters it would not have considered or had omitted to consider matters which it should have considered or that the order had occasioned a miscarriage of justice?

4. Was the Court of Appeal right to import into the appeal before it matters which were not established by evidence and to speculate on issues which were either not raised or established and to rely thereon in coming to its decision in the appeal?

5. Was the Court of Appeal right in its decision that the defendants/ respondents/appellants/respondents and co defendants / respondents / appellants/respondents should be  allowed to the detriments of plaintiffs/appellants/respondents/appellants, to be benefiting from the land?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER IS AN EQUITABLE REMEDY.

---

Appointment of Receivers being an equitable relief, the appellants have no equity to come to the Court of Chancery for relief since they had adequate remedy at common law to contest their legal title. The Court of Chancery would not at the instance of a person alleging a mere legal title against another party who was in possession of real estate and who claims to hold a legal title disturb that possession by appointing a receiver. The true ownership of the legal title put in issue has to be finally determined before invoking the equitable jurisdiction of the court in the matter – Obaseki J.S.C

 

---

PROPRIETY OF APPOINTING A RECEIVER ON LAND WHOSE TITLE IS IN DISPUTE

---

It is not the law that control and management of the land together with receipts of rents and profits from the land be removed from the person in possession by the appointment of a Receiver until the issue of title is finally determined. To do so cannot be regarded as ‘just’ and ‘convenient’. Until the third party is able to establish his legal title to the land, he cannot invoke the powers of the court to disturb the party in possession and prevent him howsoever temporarily from enjoying the rents and profits issuing from his investment on the land- Obaseki J.S.C.

 

---

CASES CITED

---

Earl Talbot v. Hope Scott (1858) 4K & J. 96;

Carrow v. Ferrior (1886) 3 Ch. App. 719

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Not Available

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT