To: James Dunn – Chairman Eric Weiss – Vice Chairman Heather ...
MR. IKECHUKWU AND THE CHAIRMAN BWARI AREA C 2OUNCIL …
Transcript of MR. IKECHUKWU AND THE CHAIRMAN BWARI AREA C 2OUNCIL …
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY
IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT KUBWA
THIS THURSDAY, THE 13TH
DAY OF DECEMBER, 2012.
BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE Y. HALILU
SUIT NO: FCT/HC/CV/2019/11
BETWEEN:
MR. IKECHUKWU NWAMADI ................... PLAINTIFF
AND
1. THE CHAIRMAN BWARI AREA COUNCIL
2. BWARI AREA COUNCIL DEFENDANTS
3. EDWIN APOCHI
JUDGMENT
By a writ of summons filed on the 3rd
day of February, 2011, Plaintiff
claimed against the Defendant as follows:
1. An Order restraining the Defendants or their privies from
encroaching, taking over, trespassing into Plot 560 Gbazango
Bwari Area Council Abuja, pending the determination of this
matter.
2. An Order of the Honourable Court restraining the 1st and 2
nd
Defendants, their cronies, allies, privies, their affiliated bodies or
any other person(s) however described from issuing to the 3rd
2
Defendant or any other person(s) a certificate of occupancy in
respect of Plot 560 Gbazango, Bwari Area Council.
3. An Order mandating 1st and 2
nd Defendants and any other body
affiliated to it to fully process and issue the Plaintiff the certificate
of occupancy, same having been paid for by the Plaintiff.
4. N3,000,000.00 damages for the demolished structure and fence in
the plot of land.
5. N500,000.00 for inconveniences the Plaintiff suffered from the
Defendant for putting him through their actions/inactions.
6. Cost of this suit and the legal fees.
In support of the writ of summons, 14 paragraph statement of claim
was filed and an 18 paragraph witness statement on oath of the
Plaintiff was also filed.
1st and 2
nd Defendants were duly served and represented while the 3
rd
Defendant, though served through substituted means, his present in
Court could not be secured.
On receipt of the writ of summons, 1st and 2
nd Defendants filed 24
paragraph Statement of Defence and 24 paragraph witness statement
on oath of one Vincent Dodo, Staff of Zonal Land Office, Bwari Area
Council.
During the trial, Plaintiff testified for himself as PW1 and called one
other witness.
3
It is the testimony of PW1 that some times in 1995, he was issued
Customary Right of Occupancy by the 2nd
Defendant via Abuja
Municipal Area Council Letter Headed Paper in respect of Plot 560
Gbazango, Bwari Area Council. PW1 tendered the said document
titled Conveyance of Provisional Approval dated 2nd
February, 1995
and it was admitted in evidence and marked exhibit “A”.
PW1 also averred that he also paid for the opening of the Policy File,
Documentation, Certification of Occupancy and Processing fees for
the Land Survey and Development. The said evidence of payments
with receipts Nos. 071513 and 071512 were tendered in evidence and
marked exhibits “B” and “C” respectively.
Plaintiff also tendered UBA deposit slip in respect of Regularisation
of policy documents in favour of AGIS. The said document was
admitted in evidence and marked exhibits “D”.
It is the testimony of PW1 further that after the issuance of the offer,
he secured the Plot of Land by fencing the land while he proceeds
with the processing of the Certificate of Occupancy.
That sometimes in 2006, he paid the necessary fees for recertification
and acknowledgment and a letter dated the 27th
day of June, 2007 was
issued him. The said letter, FCTA Regularization of Land Titles and
Documents of FCT Area Councils Acknowledgement was tendered in
evidence and marked Exhibit “E”.
4
Plaintiff also stated that at some points in time, he noticed that some
person(s) are trespassing and encroaching on the Plot of land and
therefore he wrote, through his lawyer, to Bwari Area Council. The
said letter in the letter headed paper of C. J. Okereke & Partners,
dated the 14th
day of November, 2008 and captioned ‘Re-
Encroachment on Plot No. 560 Gbazango Layout Kubwa Notice of
Encroachment’ was tendered in evidence and marked exhibit “F”.
Plaintiff stated further under examination-in-chief that at some point
in time, some persons claimed ownership of the Plot of land but with
the intervention of the Police, they all run away when they were
challenged to come forward with their offer letters.
Plaintiff testified that his offer letter was verified and confirmed as
genuine by one Musa Audu, Secretary Rural Land Use Adjudication
Committee.
However, it is the evidence of Plaintiff further that the Zonal Manager
replied him via a letter 27th
August, 2010 stating that after the
investigation carried out on the plot of land, it was discovered that
Plaintiff did not process the offer letter after he was issued same and
that one Mike Egbuna, who has earlier processed the land documents,
has changed the ownership of the land in favour of Edwin Apochi.
The copy of the said letter dated 27th
August, 2010 was tendered and
admitted in evidence and marked Exhibit “G”.
5
PW1 sought to tender Notice of Intention to sue Defendants dated the
9th
November, 2010. The said letter, having not being pleaded, was
admitted in evidence and marked Exhibit “I” rejected.
Under cross-examination, on whether Plaintiff carried out any
investigation on the land, he stated that he did not carry out any
investigation because he believed that the land is genuine.
PW1 stated that at the time he returned the Acknowledgement Letter
to Bwari Area Council, there was no any acknowledgement of such
receipt and he was not given receipt when policy file was opened.
On whether PW1 was aware that he needs building approval before
commencing work on the site, PW1 stated that he was aware but there
was no building approval.
Plaintiff reiterated the fact that the building was destroyed at DPC
level and the fence and that he does not know who destroyed the
structure.
Still under cross-examination, PW1 was asked to state the source of
his information that Mr. Rasaki submitted document on behalf of one
Engr. John with the name of Mike Egbunna and Edwin Apochi and he
responded that he was told by one Rasheed.
PW1 also denied knowing Musa Audu, the man who verified and
confirmed his letter of offer. Although, Plaintiff stated further that the
confirmation was done through one Alh. Ahmad.
6
PW1 could not produce anything to show that the letter is genuine as
demanded by Defendants’ counsel.
On the issue of the missing generator set in the building which was
destroyed at DPC level, PW1 stated he does not know how to answer
such question.
PW1 was not re-examined and as such, he was discharged.
On the 28th
July, 2011, Plaintiff was granted leave to file additional
witness statement on oath, consequently, counsel for the Plaintiff filed
additional 12 paragraph witness statement on oath of one Engr.
Samuel Eboh who was the Engineer that handled the Plaintiff’s
project at Plot 560, Gbazango, the subject matter of this suit.
On the 30th
day of September, 2011, Engr. Samuel Eboh testified as
PW2. He testified that he is a qualified builder with Ordinary National
Diploma in Building (Civil Works) with over 20 years of experience.
PW2 testified further that he was the one who supervised the fencing
of Plaintiff’s Plot of land at Gbazango at about 600m2 high
equivalents to five blocks height.
It is his testimony under examination-in-chief that sometimes in 2008,
he discovered that the fence and the units of one bedroom were
destroyed and Plaintiff reported the matter to Bwari Area Council.
Although, PW2 stated that they did not know who did the destruction
but averred that one Mr. Bankole and Mr. Rasaki who is a quantity
surveyor and a client to one Engineer John emerged, claiming
7
ownership of the subject matter of this suit. That they were
apprehended by the Police and asked to produce their title documents
which they could not and subsequently, they flew away and never
seen again.
PW2 stated further that after a while, the said Mr. Rasaki resurfaced
with Labour workers and building materials to the site. That they
were again arrested by the Police and after interrogation they were
released on bail and asked to come at a later date for further inquiry
and investigation. That Mr Rasaki never showed up and has since
removed the building materials in the site and was never seen again.
Under Cross-examination, PW2 stated that he was in the Police
Station as alleged in paragraph 6 of his witness statement on oath and
on whether any body was living in the Two Units of One Bedroom
flat he erected, PW2 stated that no one was living in.
PW2 was asked whether he was in Court on the day the Plaintiff
(PW1) gave evidence and whether he remembered what the Plaintiff
told this Court. It was his response that he was in Court when PW1
gave evidence in respect of his case, however, he cannot remember
everything that was said by the Plaintiff.
PW2 also testified under cross-examination that he doesn’t know who
demolished the building and the fence and as to whether Plaintiff had
approval before commencing development, he doesn’t know.
8
PW2 also testified that he is a registered member of Chartered
Institute of Nigerian Builders Association and that he is a known
member of the Association.
PW2, when asked where he signed his statement on oath, he said in
the Court and he pointed at the Registrar’s Office.
On whether PW2 knows Mr. Bankole and Mr. Rasaki, he answered in
affirmative.
PW2 also testified under cross-examination that he wasn’t aware
whether Plaintiff conducted search on the Land and that he cannot
remember at what date and year he stopped work at the site.
On what makes an Engineer qualified as such, PW2 stated that the
works handled previously determined how qualified an Engineer is.
PW2 was not re-examined and he was discharged.
All effort by the Plaintiff to subpoen one Theresa Ade of the Nigerian
Police, Gbazango Police Station, Kubwa, Abuja to come and tender a
letter could not yield result as the DPO wrote this Court on the 25th
October, 2011 informing this Court that the said Theresa Ade has
been seriously sick and admitted at Samaritan Hospital, Suleja-Niger
State.
Consequent upon the above, Plaintiff, on the 16th
December, 2011
closed their case and the 27th
day of January, 2012 was fixed for
defence.
9
Learned counsel for the Plaintiff made frantic effort to reopen his case
and amend the statement of claim to align with the evidence already
given in this matter. Unfortunately, the Application was vehemently
opposed by the learned counsel to the 1st and 2
nd Defendants and
eventually refused by court.
On the above ground, the 12th
day of March, 2012 was fixed for
definite defence. On the said date, counsel for Defendants led in
evidence one Mr. Vincent Dodo, Staff of Zonal Land Office in charge
of Kubwa area in Bwari Area Council. He testified as DW1.
It is his testimony in-chief that from the investigation carried out on
Plot 560 Gbazango, Bwari Area Council about 600 square meters, the
name of Mr. Ikechukwu Kelechi Nwamadi was not on the list of
allotees and was not charted in the name of Mr. Ikechukwu Kelechi
Nwamadi.
DW1 testified that contrary to the averment contained in paragraph 4
of the Plaintiff’s statement of claim, receipts are issued for payments
made to the Council.
DW1 stated further under examination-in-chief that recertification
exercise was carried out in 2006 and the letter of complaint dated the
14th
November, 2008 was sent to the Zonal Manager, Bwari Area
Council and that 1st and 2
nd Defendants were not part of any
transaction with the police on this matter.
10
DW1 also averred that 1st and 2
nd Defendants have no knowledge of
Mr. Bankole as alleged by the Plaintiff but admitted that the name of
Mike Egbuna was changed to Edwin Apochi.
It is the testimony of DW1 further that from their record, there is no
confirmation as alleged by Plaintiff and that where there is any, a
copy of such confirmed documents and the process must be recorded
in the file. DW1 stated further that investigation of Plots complained
are done officially and are documented.
DW1 stated that from the investigation carried out as a result of
Plaintiff’s letter of complaint, it was revealed that Plot No. 560
bearing Ikechukwu Kelechi Nwamadi as contained in the offer letter
was not found on the list of allotees. That the Cartographic unit has
confirmed that Plot 560 above was charted for Edwin Apochi and not
Mr. Ikechukwu Kelechi Nwamadi.
DW1 continued by saying that the TDP submitted by Mr. Ikechukwu
Kelechi Nwamadi, from their record and the policy file vide file No.
EN-765 and file No. BN-404 was confirmed forged by the
Cartographic Section. That the name of allotee bearing Mike Egbuna
later changed ownership to Edwin Apochi is the one in their records
and was duly processed.
DW1 tendered a letter of complaint on encroachment of Plot 560,
Gbazango Layout, Kubwa dated the 14th
day of November, 2008
which was addressed to the Zonal Manager, Bwari Area Council,
11
Abuja and attached the following documents as submitted by the
Plaintiff along with the complaint letter:
(1) Conveyance of Provisional Approval of Plot No. 560 of about
600m2 at Gbazango Layout dated 2
nd day of February, 1995 in
the name of Ikechukwu Kelechi Nwamadi,
(2) Federal Capital Territory Administration regularisation of land
Titles with Documents of FCT Area Council Acknowledgement
dated the 27th
day of May 2007 with file No. 765.
(3) Photocopies of receipts and a Deposit slip
(4) Right Occupancy No FCT/BZTP/LA granted to Ikechukwu
Kelechi.
The said letter was admitted in evidence and marked exhibit “DA”.
DW1 also tendered Investigation Report on Plot 560, Gbazango
Layout of about 600m2 dated 29
th June, 2011. The said letter was
admitted in evidence and marked Exhibit “DB”.
DW1 states the particulars of forgery as followed: that the TDP
submitted was not signed by the Zonal Land Surveyor and same did
not emanate from the Zonal Land Office.
It is the testimony of DW1 that 1st and 2
nd Defendants did not collude
with 3rd
Defendant or with any person whatsoever in respect of plot
560 or any other plot and that the reply written to the plaintiff and the
investigation on the said plot of land in question was done officially
in discharge of his duty.
12
DW1 stated that 1st and 2
nd Defendants denied paragraphs 16, 17, 18,
19, 20 and 21 (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) of Plaintiff’s statement
of claim and stated that Plaintiff is not entitled to any of the claims
stated in the claims for the reason above sated which emanated from
the official records.
Under cross-examination, learned counsel reminded DW1 of the
implication of telling lies before this court which he said could lead to
imprisonment.
DW1 testified under cross-examination as follows, that he is a level
08 officer and a district officer of Kubwa in charge of designing
layout and site reports and also represent the Zonal Officer in case of
any land matter.
On whether he was the one was conducted investigation of this
subject matter, DW1 said no, that it was one Umeza Rasheed
(deceased) who carried out the investigation as he was the district
officer then. That the said Umeza died in 2010.
DW1 was asked to tell the Court how lands are acquired at the Area
Council and this is what he has to say, “you apply with a non-
refundable deposit of N100,000.00, filed and return form wherein you
shall be allocated plot of land if you are lucky, by issuance of an offer
letter”. He continued by saying, “if you were issued letter of
allocation, you have succeeded but you must continue with process of
documentation.”
13
Other things to be done as stated by DW1 include the registration of
the land by payment of certain amount of money.
DW1 sated under cross-examination that what prompted the
investigation was the letter of Complaint brought through C. J.
Okereke & Partners.
DW1 was asked to tell the Court the process of resolving complaints
of this nature as regard the Plaintiff’s case and he states as follows,
“we resolve the issue by asking for the complaint’s land documents,
confirm the validity among others by confirming the TDP from our
Cartographic Office wherein a policy file shall be required from
Abuja Geographic Information System, AGIS in respect of the Plot in
question before a site officer shall be sent to the site to write the
report for proper verification.
DW1 stated that Policy files are opened after registration of the land
with Area Council and they are kept in AGIS.
On how DW1 knows that Edwin Apochi is the owner of the Plot in
dispute, DW1 stated that the name was contained on the list of
allotees with duly signed TDP which was charted in Cartographic
office. That the name was also contained on the Policy file at AGIS
and his documents are good documents.
DW1 stated further under cross-examination that the Cartographic
Office draws the TDP and prints it. On whether any party can produce
TDP, DW1 stated that he doesn’t know.
14
DW1 also stated that Mr. Apochi produce TDP before the
investigation was carried out and that it is not possible for a Plot of
Land to have two files.
DW1 also testified under cross-examination that it is the Revenue
Office that can warrant issuance of receipt of Bwari Area Council in
respect of land matters and that such receipts cannot be issued without
confirming the genuiness of the transaction. DW1 also stated that
receipts are not issued indiscriminately.
DW1, still under cross-examination testified that he has two years of
experience and on whether he has ever notice the fact that Policy Files
get missing, he said the Area Council do not keep Policy Files but
AGIS and he doesn’t know of any case of missing file at AGIS. DW1
also stated that nobody has ever complaint of missing Policy File.
Learned counsel for the Plaintiff asked whether DW1 knows him as a
Lawyer in this Jurisdiction and he said, ‘yes’ and whether DW1
knows he has a complaint on Policy file, DW1 said, ‘not a Policy File,
it was the case file and that he was asked to visit a site and report and
he did report.
DW1 was not re-examined, therefore he was discharged and that was
the case of the 1st and 2
nd Defendants. Consequently, the suit was
adjourned to 18th
day of May, 2012 and subsequently, to the 14th
day
of June, 2012 for adoption of final written addresses.
15
In compliance with the order of this Court, learned counsel for the 1st
& 2nd
Defendants filed their final written address on the 30th
day of
March, 2012. On receipt of the 1st & 2
nd Defendants’ final written
address, learned counsel for the Plaintiff filed on the 11th
day of May,
2012. It was adopted on the 14th
day of May, 2012.
Learned counsel for the Plaintiff formulated the following issues for
determination:
1. Whether the Plaintiff has proved his case in respect of Title and
possession of the land the subject matter of this case.
2. Whether there was establishment of fraud against the Plaintiff
by the Defendants in this civil matter.
3. Whether the non joinder of a party can vitiate the case of the
Plaintiff where he has a right.
4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to his claim against the
Defendants.
On issue 1, i.e., whether the Plaintiff has proved his case in respect
of title and possession of the land the subject matter of this case, it is
the submission of learned council for the Plaintiff that Plaintiff has
proved his case on a balance of probability in accordance with
Evidence Act 2011. This is because, as learned counsel stated, the
three elementary components of a valid contract were present in the
transaction of the Plaintiff with the 1st and 2
nd Defendants. Thus, there
was offer, qualified acceptance and consideration.
16
Learned counsel submitted that it is common principle of law that
where a party testifies on material points, (in this view), the offer of
land and evidence of payment as acceptance and consideration, the
Defendant ought to cross-examine him, to show that his testimony is
untrue. Where in this case this was not done, the Court would readily
conclude that the adverse party, in this case, the Plaintiff will be
entitled to judgement since his evidence remained uncontradicted by
the Defence.
He argued further that Defendant never denied the receipt was not
issued by it. He submitted and urged the Court to act positively on the
evidence and hold that the Plaintiff has proved his case against the
Defendant in respect of the offer, acceptance and consideration. The
case of OMOREGBE vs D.P. LAWANI (1980) S.C. 108 P117 was
cited.
It is the contention of counsel that Defendant could not call any
witness to testify to the effect that carto unit confirmed that Plot 560
was charted in favour of Edwin Apochi as alleged in the their
Statement of Defence and that the law is clear that he who asserts
must prove. He argued further that there was no document to prove
the above assertion, not even a copy of the offer letter or the
purported TDP charted in favour of the 3rd
Defendant or in favour of
any other person.
Counsel urged the Court to discountenance this line of argument and
hold that Plaintiff has proved his case on preponderance of evidence.
17
On Issue 2, i.e., whether there was establishment of fraud (forgery)
against the Plaintiff by the Defendants in this civil matter, it is the
contention of learned counsel for the Plaintiff that the issue of fraud is
a mere allegation that were not proved nor substantiated, and that it is
well known that files are numbered in accordance with the offerees
state letters and EN represents Enugu, while BN represents Benue
State. The Plaintiff is from Owerri, Imo State and could not be given a
TDP with Enugu or Benue State number.
Counsel contended that it is clear and unequivocal that the Plaintiff
mentioned in its letter to the Defendants through its lawyer, the
documents he relies on to make his claims to the land and such
documents he mentioned in the letter, he also pleaded in the statement
of claim and also testified on. Counsel also stated that DW1, under
cross-examination rightly stated that TDP’s cannot be made by
offerees but by the offerors i.e. the 2nd
Defendant. Hence, in his view,
the defence is contradicting itself.
Counsel respectfully submitted that it is settled law that, he who
asserts must prove. The onus of a party alleging fraud as in this case
of forgery, is even greater than what is required in civil. He relied on
the case of OLALOMI VS NIG. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
BANK (2009) M.J.S.C. PAGE 136 AT 154 where it was held that
fraud requires a high degree of probability in its proof. Allegation of
fraud must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It requires proof in
the realm of probability not fantastic probability. See also GEORGE
18
VS DOMINION FLOOR MILLS LTD (1963) ALL N.L.R 70,
OMOBORIOWO VS AJASIN (1984) 1. S.C.N.L; AINA VS
JINADU (1992) 4 N.W.L.R Pt. 233 PAGE 91.
Learned counsel submitted that no particulars were pleaded/proved
for or in support of the allegation of connivance, collusion or fraud
against the Plaintiff with the Cartographic unit where the Defendants
insinuates the forgery occurred. Reliance was placed on the case of
ANYANWU VS UZOWUAKA (2009) 7 M.J.S.C PART 1 PAGE 1
AT 29, PARA A-B.
Learned counsel for the Plaintiff contended that the point being made
here is that the Defendant palpably failed to ventilate evidence before
this Court in proof of its allegation of forgery which is fraud, making
a heavy weather on the issue of TDP which was not pleaded by the
Plaintiff in an attempt to impute fraud on the Plaintiff’s transaction
with the Defendants. These, as he said, are mere conjectures which
cannot take the place of admissible and persuasive evidence.
Counsel also stated that Plaintiff was not offered an opportunity to
cross-examine anybody from Cartographic unit on the alleged
questionable dealing that this allegation is spurious, and not proved.
On Issue 3, whether the non joinder of a party can vitiate the case
of the Plaintiff where he has a right, counsel for the Plaintiff
submitted that non-joinder of the Minister of F.C.T does not vitiate
this action against the Defendants since there has been established a
19
right of the Plaintiff which has been infringed upon, and that if the
Minister must necessarily be before the court, the Defendants or the
court can suo motu order his appearance/being made a party in this
suit.
Again, counsel submitted that 1st and 2
nd Defendants have not denied
being proper parties in this suit, and that there are evidences of
transactions by the Plaintiff with the 2nd
Defendant and to strengthen
that, DW1, under cross examination stated that the 2nd
Defendant does
not issue its receipt indiscriminately. Thereby, as stated by learned
counsel for the Plaintiff, confirming the fact that, the receipts issued
to the Plaintiff by the 2nd
Defendant were for a genuine transaction.
Counsel contended further that the law is that only a party to a
contract can sue or be sued, therefore, it is the duty of the Defendant
who believes that it has a principal to join the said Principal in an
action against it, if it has acted for or on its behalf. Counsel referred to
Order 10 Rules 5 (1) of The High Court Civil Procedure Rules FCT
Abuja 2004 which states; “Where it appears to a Court, at or before
the hearing, that all persons possibly interested in the suit have not
been made parties, the Court may adjourn and direct that those be
made either Plaintiffs or Defendants in the suit.”
And Order 10 Rules 3 (2) which states; “Judgement may be given
against any one or more Defendants according to their respective
liabilities.”
20
Flowing from the above, counsel submitted that no cause or matter
shall be defeated by reason of misjoinder or non-joinder of parties.
The case of IYERE VS B.F & F.M LTD (2008) 12 M.J.S.C Page
128 Paragraphs B-C was relied upon.
Counsel urged the Court to hold that Defendants ought to join the
Minister or any other party that are necessary in this matter.
On issue 4, whether the Plaintiff is entitled to his claim against the
Defendants, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that Plaintiff
has proved before this Court that he was given an offer in respect of
the subject matter of this suit. He has also proved that he paid for the
processing of the subject matter through the receipts tendered and
admitted in evidence. That he tendered the evidence of recertification
of the documents of the land before Abuja Geographic Information
Systems. That none of these facts and evidence has been controverted.
That he has also given evidence which was corroborated to show that
he has started development on the land. That the duty of charting the
TDP and issuance of necessary title documents rests on the
Defendants.
On the issue raised by the Defendants that it is the law that before
buildings are erected, there must be an approved plan, counsel stated
that that is erroneous and goes to no issue as there is no law backing
that.
21
On the issue of PW2 being in Court as at the time PW1 testified,
learned counsel submitted that that should be discountenanced as
PW2 was never a witness at the time PW1 testified.
Counsel also submitted that it does not lie in the mouth of the
Defendants to say that Plaintiff must have fallen in the hands of dupes
as the Court does not act on such speculations.
Learned counsel submitted further that the law is that a person in
possession of a property is the owner until the contrary is proved. The
burden of proof, as he said, rests on the party asserting that the
possessor is not the owner. The case of UDE VS NWARA (1993) 2
N.W.L.R PART 278 relied upon.
Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff stated further Defendants have not
been able to prove the fact that Plaintiff is not the owner of the plot he
has been in possession. Counsel cited Section 134 of the Evidence
Act 2011 which provides; “When the question is whether any person
is the owner of anything of which he is shown to be in possession,
the burden of proving that he is not the owner is on the person who
affirms that he is not the owner”
In conclusion, learned counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that Plaintiff
has established sufficient evidence in proof of his case, and he urged
the Court to accordingly award the Plaintiff his claims.
22
On the part of 1st and 2
nd Defendants, 19 pages Final Written
Address was filed and learned counsel for the 1st and 2
nd Defendants
formulated the following issues:-
1. Whether the Plaintiff is in any way entitle to his claim against
the 1st Defendant.
2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to his claim against the 2nd
Defendant.
3. Whether the Plaintiff has proved his case to entitle him to his
claim.
Arguing issue 1 above, learned counsel for Defendants submitted that
1st Defendant is the Chairman of Bwari Area Council and has no
connection to this matter. That Exhibit “A” which is the Conveyance
of Provisional Approval was not signed by the Chairman of Bwari
Area Council rather purportedly signed by Musa Audu, a staff of
FCDA who as at 1995 was the Zonal Land Manager and the Secretary
of the Rural Land Use adjudication Committee. Counsel referred to 1st
paragraph of Exhibit “A” which reads thus:- “I am pleased to convey,
the chairman, caretaker committees approval of a customary right
of occupancy.”
Counsel submitted further that as at 1995, the Committee comprising
of the Chairman, Secretary and other members which was known as
Rural Land Use Adjudication Committee had the Zonal Land
Manager of that particular Area Council where the land is situated as
23
the secretary. In the instant case, as stated by counsel for Defendants,
the Conveyance letter was signed by the Zonal land manager i.e.
Secretary of that Committee and that The Zonal Land Manager is a
staff of the FCDA (Federal Capital Development Authority).
Counsel contended further that FCDA was not joined by the Plaintiff
as a party to this suit, neither was the Minister of the FCTA (Federal
Capital Territory Administration) made a party. Counsel also stated
that Exhibit “D”, which is the UBA teller (Deposit Slip) is a purported
deposit of some money paid to the Account of Abuja Geographic
Information Systems and same purportedly stamped by Abuja
Geographic Information Systems, and that Exhibit “E” which is the
purported acknowledgment was issued by AGIS.
Exhibit “F” which is the letter written by the Plaintiff via his lawyer
was addressed to the Zonal Manager, Bwari Area Council and copied
to the Director land, Recertification Office, Area 11, Garki, Abuja.
Learned counsel submitted that the only document that amanated
from Bwari Area Council are Exhibit “B” and “C” which are receipts.
Counsel referred this Court to all the above mentioned Exhibits and
submitted that Exhibit “B” is a payment of N10,000 Certificate of
Occupancy and Exhibit “C” is N6,500 payment for processing.
Counsel submitted that Bwari Area Council is constitutionally
permitted to collect revenue from all transactions made within its
jurisdiction except where expressly provided for.
24
Furthermore, counsel submitted that payments made in respect of
lands are made upon presentation of a photocopy of offer letter i.e.
(Conveyance of Provisional Approval) simplicita. Counsel drew the
attention of the Court to the evidence of DW1 where Plaintiff’s
counsel, upon cross examination, asked whether payment made in
respect of lands is an evidence of genuinety and that DW1 answered
No.
Therefore, counsel contended that Exhibit “B” and “C” were simply
payment (revenue) made by the Plaintiff upon presentation of the
offer letter without any confirmation. Counsel submitted further that
the revenue office of the 1st Defendant is a different office from that
of the zonal lands as such, payments made to the Revenue
Department of the 1st Defendant Office does not and cannot confer
genuinety of title to the Plaintiff.
Counsel argued further that from the totality of the Plaintiff’s
Statement of Claim, 1st Defendant is no where mentioned. The
transactions carried out by the Plaintiff were all between the Plaintiff
and the Zonal Land Manager and AGIS. Reference was made to
Exhibits “A”, “D”, “E”, “F” and “G”, and that 1st Defendant was
never a party to the purported transactions made by the Plaintiff.
Counsel also referred to paragraphs 1 - 20 of the Plaintiff’s Statement
of Claim.
25
Counsel therefore submitted that this matter does not bother the 1st
Defendant. The case of Ojoh .V. Kamalu, 2LNSCQR pg. 300 was
cited where Niki Tobi, JSC held that:
“The law is elementary that it is not the function of a Court to
instigate parties to litigate on issues that do not bother them.”
Learned Counsel submitted that the totality of the Plaintiff’s case does
not in any way bother the 1st Defendant therefore, Plaintiff’s case
against 1st Defendant must failed.
On Plaintiff’s claim 1 against the 1st Defendant, learned counsel for
the Defendants submitted that the said land have been in possession of
the 1st Defendant, neither has the 1
st Defendant trespassed on the said
land till date. That Plaintiff has not shown this Court that 1st
Defendant is in possession or has ever accosted him on the said land.
Counsel argued further that Plaintiff in evidence admitted that the
reason why he brought 1st and 2
nd Defendants to Court is because of
Exhibit “G” which is the letter from the 2nd
Defendant, Zonal Land
Office.
It is the contention of learned counsel for the Defendants that 2nd
Defendant is the Zonal Land Office of FCDA which completely
different office from the 1st Defendant.
Counsel submitted therefore that 1st Defendant is nowhere mentioned
even in Exhibit “G”, therefore, Plaintiff is not entitle to any relief
from the 1st Defendant.
26
On Plaintiff’s second claim, counsel submitted that 1st Defendant
cannot issue Certificate of Occupancy as issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy is handled by AGIS.
On claim 3, counsel submitted that 1st Defendant is not in the position
to process and issue Certificate of Occupancy, the office in charge is
the Zonal land office which is a different office.
On claim 4, learned counsel for the Defendants submitted that there is
no connection whatsoever between the Plaintiff and 1st Defendant and
they reiterated the fact that 1st Defendant is completely different from
the Zonal Planning Office. Counsel further submitted that paragraph 2
of Exhibit “G” which reads as follows:
“Please be informed that the Zonal Planning Office has gone
through all its records and policy file received from AGIS has
revealed that” shows that the office of the Zonal Land Manager is a
Zonal Land Office of FCDA in Bwari Area as such, transactions
made with that office cannot and should not be treated as being made
with the 1st Defendant. Exhibit “G” and “F” was referred to and urged
the Court to so hold.
On Plaintiff’s claims 5, 6 and 7, learned counsel for the Defendants
submitted that plaintiff is not entitled to these claim as same is
frivolous. The case of DADA VS. DOSUNMU 27, NSCQR 518
where Niki Tobi JSC held that “the role of the Court is to apply the
principle of substantial justice according to law.”
27
Counsel submitted that, it is trite law that he who asserts must proof.
In the instant case, Plaintiff has failed to proof that he is entitled to
these claims from the 1st Defendant, and that no contract whatsoever
was carried out between the Plaintiff and 1st Defendant. The claim is
rather a misplacement of claim and such is frivolous and urged the
Court to so hold and dismiss the claim against 1st Defendant. Counsel
relied on the case of BANI HARUNA .V. MODOBBO (2006) EPR
719-720 where it was held that “the principle has long been
established that no one is punished for the crime of another”
Counsel submitted further that it is one thing to claim a relief and
another to prove it. The case of SKYE BANK .V. AKINPELU (2010)
42 NSCQR4 527 was relied upon.
On issue 2, whether Plaintiff is entitled to his claim against the 2nd
Defendant, learned counsel for the Defendants contended that it is
trite that he who asserts must prove. That Plaintiff is
asserting/claiming that 2nd
Defendant connived with the Plaintiff’s
adversaries and is trying to deprive the plaintiff his title as alleged in
paragraphs 8 and 9 of Statement of Claim.
However, Counsel for the Defendant, stated that, Plaintiff in evidence
admitted he has brought the 1st and 2
nd Defendants to Court because
of Exhibit “G”.
Counsel submitted that the reply i.e. Exhibit “G” is simply a reply to a
complaint of the Plaintiff after due investigation from the list of
28
allotees, the Cartographic Unit and the Policy file from AGIS.
Counsel referred this Court to Exhibit “F”, “G”, “DA” and “DB”.
That 2nd
Defendant simply related what is on record to the Plaintiff.
Counsel stated further that Plaintiff also admitted that he did not
conduct a search on the plot before or after he was given the
purported letter i.e. Exhibit “A” “Conveyance of Provisional
Approval neither did he conduct any search at all, until 2nd
Defendant wrote him i.e Exhibit “G”.
Counsel reiterated the fact that the said conveyance in the name of the
Plaintiff is not on the list of allottees from the records, neither is it
charted in his name and there is no building plan approval. That
Plaintiff merely attached an unsigned building plan to his letter to the
2nd
Defendant i.e Exhibit “D1”
Counsel for the Defendants submitted that 2nd
Defendant did not
collude with any person to deprive the Plaintiff any title and that 2nd
Defendant was not a party to the matter when the Plaintiff reported
his adversaries to the police.
On issue 3, whether the plaintiff has proved his case to entitle him to
his claim, Counsel submitted that, Plaintiff has failed to prove his case
to entitle him to his claims. This is because, as stated by counsel for
the Defendants that Plaintiff in evidence admitted he has never
conducted a search on the plot in issue, and that he has failed to
present the acceptance form as alleged in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’s
29
Statement of Claim. That Plaintiff has failed to tell or show this
Honourable Court where he made the payment as alleged in
paragraph 4 of his Statement of Claim and to whom the payment was
made to for such a fundamental purpose and was not receipted for.
Counsel submitted that AGIS is the office that opens Policy Files and
there is always evidence of payment for opening Policy File, and that
Plaintiff must have fallen to the hands of dups.
Learned counsel for the Defendants contended that in paragraph 5 and
7 of Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim, Plaintiff avers that after the
purported payment that was not receipted for, he fence the plot.
However, counsel stated that in paragraph 7 of Plaintiff’s Claim,
Plaintiff averred that in 2008 some people encroached and destroyed
the fence and the 2 units of one bedroom flat erected up to lintel level.
Counsel submitted that Plaintiff have not shown this Honourable
Court any evidence of such destruction of fence, however assuming
but not conceding that he build a fence and a 2 units of one bedroom
flat, counsel submitted that Plaintiff have not presented any
documented evidence or pictures to show that there was a demolition.
Furthermore, Counsel submitted that Plaintiff have admitted in
evidence upon cross examination that he did not obtain any building
approval before erecting the fence and the 2 units of one bedroom flat
build to DPC level.
30
Flowing from above, counsel for the Defendants submitted that the
law is settled that before any development is made, the developer
must obtain a building plan.
On the issue of confirmation of the offer letter by one Musa Audu,
learned counsel submitted that Plaintiff has admitted that he does not
know Musa Audu, and that Plaintiff failed to show and or tell this
Court who took the said offer to Musa Audu and where Musa Audu
wrote and signed ‘confirmed’ on his offer or any other document at
all. That it is a mere assertion and this Court is a Court of law and
record which is bound by evidence presented to her. Therefore,
counsel submitted that in the instant case, no evidence whatsoever is
before this court to make this Court act on the above fact.
On the issue of Generator set alleged missing in the demolished
structure by the Plaintiff, Counsel for the Defendants submitted that in
evidence, Plaintiff admitted that nobody had ever lived in Plot 560
neither was anyone staying in the Plot of land. Counsel also stated
that when Plaintiff was asked how his generating set got missing in
the house that was just at DPC level, he said he does not know how to
answer that question.
Counsel submitted that this averment is vexatious, therefore, counsel
urged the Court to dismiss same.
On the claim of Plaintiff that he suffers high blood pressure and that
he paid N600,000.00 professional fees, learned counsel submitted
31
that this two claims have been abandoned by the Plaintiff. This is
because, as stated by learned counsel for the Defendants, Plaintiff did
not mention this fact anywhere in his statement on oath neither did he
show any other evidence with regards to these assertions.
Counsel submitted, from the above, that facts pleaded but not adduced
in evidence are deemed abandoned. Counsel referred to the case of
case of BUHARI & ORS VS OBANSANJO & ORS (2004) IEPR
153 where A. I IGUH, JSC held that “the law is settled that where
counsel proffered no argument on any issue before the court, such
issue must be deemed as having been abandoned”. Counsel urged
the Court to so hold.
Counsel submitted that from the totality of the Plaintiff’s case,
Plaintiff have failed to prove that he is entitled to his claims.
It is the contention of learned counsel for the 1st and 2
nd Defendants
that the evidence of PW2 be expunged from the record of the Court
having admitted in evidence that he was in Court when PW1 gave
evidence and heard all the testimony and cross examination of PW1.
Counsel submitted further that the law is that when a witness is giving
evidence in Court, all other witness must be out of Court and out of
hearing.
In conclusion, counsel for the Defendants submitted that it is
elementary law that Plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his case
32
and not on the weakness of the Defendant. Counsel urged the Court to
dismiss this case against the 1st and 2
nd Defendants.
Permit me to state that learned counsel for the 1st and 2
nd Defendants
filed reply on point of law to plaintiff’s final written address and they
reacted as follow:
1. In response to paragraph 9 of Plaintiff’s summary of facts,
counsel submitted that public officers are bound by the civil
service rules and official records which are public documents.
See section 109 of the Evidence Act.
2. In response to paragraph 12 of Plaintiff’s summary of facts,
counsel submitted that it is not the duty of the 1st and 2
nd
Defendant to know the address of the 3rd
Defendant, it is the
duty of the Plaintiff to ensure that parties are served. That the
purpose of the substituted service as provided in Order 11 of the
Rules of Court is to ensure that parties are served but where the
address is not known the aim of the service which is to come
and defend has been defeated.
3. In response to paragraph 13 of the summary of facts, submitted
that 1st and 2
nd Defendant proved his case by calling a witness
and tendered documents.
4. In response to facts distilled from pleading as presented by the
Plaintiff, counsel submitted that investigations were carried out
from their records and the policy file.
33
5. Contrary to what was contained in the Plaintiff’s evidence as
presented, learned counsel for the 1st and 2
nd Defendant stated
that It was never pleaded that Bwari Area Council was invited
and they failed to show up, therefore learned counsel for the
Plaintiff cannot, in his address aver that 2nd
Defendant was
invited and they never showed up. Counsel referred to W.S.N.
ONNOGHEN JSC, in the case of ADEKEYE VS ADESINA
(2010) 44 NSCAR 490 also in the words of A.M MUKHTAR,
JSC where he stated that the law is settled that evidence on
facts not pleaded should be ignored, as they go to no issue.
Learned counsel for the 1st and 2
nd Defendants urged the Court to
ignore the submission of the Plaintiff above.
In response to argument of learned Counsel for the Plaintiff on issue
one, counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the ingredients of a valid
contract is not present in this matter, as such the issue of contract
cannot arise here, that Plaintiff have not told this court that he bought
the land from the Bwari Area Council. Counsel referred to the
evidence of DW1 upon cross examination by the Plaintiff wherein
DW1 further explained the procedure and what is expected of a
person who has an offer of allocation. That the offer letter alone is not
a genuine title, it must be duly registered.
On the issue of forgery, counsel submitted that 1st and 2
nd Defendant
called a witness from the same office who is the district officer and
34
whose schedule is to handle complaints, visit site, investigate and
represent the Zonal Land Manager in Court.
Learned Counsel for the 1st and 2
nd Defendants contended further that
Plaintiff’s submission that 1st and 2
nd Defendant ought to subpoen an
officer from the Cartographic unit is rather a misplacement of fact and
law.
On issue 3, Counsel submitted that Plaintiff must success on the
strength of his case not on the weakness of the Defendant, see NEPA
VS INAMETI (2002)11 NWLR (pt. 778) 39.
On issue 4, Counsel referred to Section 7 of the FCT Act, 2004 which
provides as follows;
S. 7 “Development without authority’s approval is prohibited.
(1) As from the commencement of this Act, no person or body
shall within the Federal Capital Territory, carry out any
development within the meaning of this Act unless the written
approval of the authority has been obtained by such person or
body;
Provided that the authority may make a general order with
respect to the interim development of the land within the Federal
Capital Territory and may make special orders with respect to
the interim development of any portion of land within the
particular area.
35
(2) The authority shall have power to require every person who
otherwise than in pursuance of an approval granted or order
made under subsection(1) of this section proceeds with or does
any work preformed and reinstate the land or where applicable,
the building, in the condition in which it was before the
commencement of such work, and in the event of any failure on
the part of any such person to comply with any such
requirement, the authority shall cause the necessary work to be
carried out and may recover the expenses thereof from such
person as a debt.
Counsel submitted that it is mandatory for anybody carrying out
development of any land to first obtain an approval from the Minister
of FCT.
Counsel referred to the case of UBA PLC VS SAMBA PET. CO.
LTD (2002) 16 NWLR (pt. 793) 361 at 401 paragraph F-G, where it
was held that;
“Damages due to the legitimate exercise of a right is not
actionable, even if the actor contemplated the damages, it is
damnum obseque injuria (i.e losee without wrong). The
damage must be attributed to the breach by the Defendant of
some duty owing to the Plaintiff”.
Counsel submitted that though Plaintiff’s house was not demolished
by the 1st and 2
nd Defendant, neither has the Plaintiff pleaded same
36
only to be asking for damages, therefore, counsel submitted that
whatever building whatsoever that was demolished is a loss without
wrong because Plaintiff never obtained an approval to develop the
land.
Reference was made to the case of DANTOSHO VS MOHAMMED
(2003)6 NWLR (pt. 817)457 at 488 paragraph F-G, where it was
held that “that it is not enough that the right of the owner or person
in exclusive possession was invade. It is settled principle of law that
where a person who initially entered upon land lawfully or pursuant
to an authority given by the true owner, or person in possession
subsequently abuses his position or that authority he becomes a
trespasser abinitio, his conduct relating back so as to make his
initial entry trespass.”
Finally, learned counsel for the 1st and 2
nd Defendants submitted that
Plaintiff have only shown this Court he is a trespasser. Counsel urged
the Court to hold and dismiss the claim of the Plaintiff against 1st and
2nd
Defendants.
I have gone through the reliefs sought by Plaintiff against the
Defendants and the evidence alluded in aid of the claim, on one part,
and the defence of the 1st and 2
nd Defendants and the corresponding
evidence in aid of their defence on the other part.
The issue, whether Plaintiff has made out a case of ownership based
on possession, has been formulated for determination by this court.
37
In summary, the case of the Plaintiff against the Defendants is that he
was issued customary right of occupancy in 1995 over plot 560
Gbazango, Bwari Area Council, on the headed paper of AMAC,
which he duly accepted whereof he paid for policy file
documentation, certificate of occupancy and processing fee for the
survey and development of the said land, which was later forced by
Plaintiff.
It is the case of Plaintiff that in 2008, he notice trespassers on the said
land in the persons of Mssrs Bankole and at a later time Rasaki, a
quantity surveyor, who claimed to be working for one Engr. John who
also claimed he had the land. Eventually, they all left after Plaintiff
reported the trespass to police.
Eventually, Plaintiff’s counsel wrote a letter to the Zonal Manager of
the 1st and 2
nd Defendants to save him from trespassers to his land in
2010, November, 14th
.
The Zonal Manager’s response to Plaintiff’s letter aforementioned,
was to the effect that the land in issue belonged to one Edwin Apochi
in view of the change of ownership made by Mike Egbuna in his
favour.
Plaintiff who did not find the response well, later filed this action in
court as per his writ of summons.
In the cause of hearing, Plaintiff who pleaded and frontloaded
documents, tendered the following documents as Exhibits “A”, “B”,
38
“C”, “D”, “E”, “F”, “G”, “H” and “I” (rejected) in evidence through
the Plaintiff himself.
a) Abuja Municipal Area Council letter of conveyance of principal
approval dated the 2nd
February, 1995.
b) Bwari Area Council receipts nos. 071513 and 071512 issued one
Ikechukwu Kelechi Nwamadi dated the 16th
August, 2006.
c) United Bank of Africa deposit slip dated the 19th
December,
2006.
d) Regularization acknowledgment letter issued by FCTA dated
the 27th
June, 2007.
e) Letter on letter headed paper of CJ Okerke & Partners dated the
14th
day of November, 2008.
f) Letter from Bwari Area Council dated the 27th
day of August,
2010 to C.J Okerke & Partners.
g) Letter by C.J Okereker & Partners to Chairman Bwari Area
Council dated the 1st day of November, 2010.
h) Another letter by CJ Okereke & Partners to Chairman Bwari
Area Council dated the 1st day of November, 2010..
On the part of the 1st and 2
nd Defendants, their defence to the claim of
the Plaintiff as contained on the writ of summons filed on the 8th
February, 2011 is that they do not have any official records of
39
Ikechukwu Kelechi Nwamadi as the bonafide allottee of plot 560
Gbazango layout, Kubwa.
It is further the defence of 1st and 2
nd Defendants that their
cartographic department charted the said plot in favour of one Edwin
Apochi and not Ikechukwu Kelechi Nwamadi, the Plaintiff, in this
suit. 1st and 2
nd Defendants also maintained that the change of
ownership between Mike Egbuna and Edwin Apochi was duly
processed and is on the record of Bwari Area Council.
1st and 2
nd Defendants equally maintained that the TDP submitted by
Plaintiff to Bwari Area Council lands department was confirmed
forged, see paragraph 19 of 1st and 2
nd Defendants’ statement of
defence. 1st and 2
nd Defendants led in evidence a sole witness in the
person of Vincent Dodo, who tendered letter dated the 14th
day of
November, 2008 written by C.J Okereke & Partners and another
document, captured, investigation report on plot 560 Gbagango layout
of about 600m2, dated the 29th
June, 2011 which were admitted and
marked Exhibits “DA” and “DB” respectively.
Permit me at this juncture to observe that in law, prove of grant is not
the same with proof of title.
Proof of grant is one of the five ways of proving title to land.
See IDUDUN VS OLUMAGBA (1970) 9 – 10 SC 246.
Therefore he who relies on documents of grant to prove title must not
stop at the production of the document stage, but shall proceed to
40
plead and prove same by evidence unless such a title has been
admitted.
The following are ways of proving title to land.
1. Traditional evidence
2. Production of documents of title duly authenticated.
3. Act of Positive possession over a period of time.
4. Long possession and enjoyment of the land.
5. Proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in .............
rendering it probable that the owner of such connected or adjacent
land would in addition be the owners of the land in dispute.
See ECHANOMI VS OKOTIE &ORS (2011) LPELR – 4969, see
IDUNDUN VS OKOMDGBA (1976) 9 – 10 SC 246.
In view of the fact that Plaintiff’s emphasis is on grant of land made
him by Abuja Municipal Area Council, over plot 560 Gbazango,
Bwari Area Council vide Customary right of Occupancy dated 2nd
February, 2995, the court shall for now examine the said claim of
Plaintiff viz – a- vis the defence of the 1st and 2
nd Defendants to
ascertain the veracity of Plaintiff’s claim.
It is also instructive to note that 3rd
Defendant, Edwin Apochi, the
supposed person whose record as stated by Dw1 is with Bwari Area
Council and owner of land in dispute, refused and or neglected to
41
attend this court throughout the proceedings in this matter despite
receipt of writ of summons and hearing notices. Needless to say, that
3rd
Defendant did not lead any evidence and or file any statement of
defence.
The court therefore is left with the claim of Plaintiff and defence of 1st
and 2nd
Defendants to conferred with.
I shall narrow my scope of search of Plaintiff’s kind of title to Exhibit
“A” which is the conveyance of provisional approval issued Plaintiff
by Abuja Municipal Area Council dated the 2nd
day of February,
1995, having tendered in evidence the said title document as prove of
title to the land in issue.
It is common knowledge in law that for there to be a valid contract,
there must be offer, acceptance construction and an intention to create
legal relation.
One other fundamental principles of law of contract is that the parties
must reach consensus ad-idem in respect of the terms thereof for the
contract to be regarded as legally building and enforceable.
See NJINKONYE VS MTN NIG. COMMUNICATION LTD (2008)
9 NWLR (pt. 1092) 339 at 363 paragraphs F-H.
An offer is a definite indication by one person to another that he is
willing to conclude a contract on the terms purposed, which when
accepted, will create a building legal obligation. The offer may be
verbal, written or implied from the conduct of the offeror. The offeree
42
has the option of accepting or out rightly rejecting the offer. See
AMANA SUITS HOTELS LTD VS PDP (2007)6 NWLR (pt. 1031)
453 at 476 paragraphs F-H.
Acceptance of an offer on the other hand, is the reciprocal act of
action of the offeree to the offeror in which he indicates his agreement
to the terms of the offer as conveyed to him by the offeror. Simply
put, acceptance is the act of compliance on the part of the offeree
(Plaintiff in this case) with the terms of the offer.
Certainly, it is the element of acceptance that underscores the bilateral
nature of contract.
Acceptance of an offer may be demonstrated by conduct of parties, by
their words, or documents that have passed between them.
See AMANA SUITS HOTELS LTD VS PDP (2007) 6 NWLR (pt.
1031) 453 at 477 – 478 paragraphs F-A.
A cursory look at Exhibit “A” i.e the conveyance of provisional
approval, particularly paragraphs three and four, which I shall
reproduce for ease of reference, will reveal a fundamental aspect of
this contract which was never met.
Paragraph three
“The date of commencement of this right of occupancy will be
the date of acceptance as signified by you, and should be
within two months from the date of this letter”...
43
Paragraph four
“I attach herewith two copies of letter of acceptance for your
completion and thereafter return a copy of same to me for my
records purpose, please.”....
Poser.. Did Plaintiff accept the offer of conveyance of provisional
approval vide letter of offer dated the 2nd
February, 1995 made by
Abuja Municipal Area Council..
If yes, why has Plaintiff not tendered the letter of acceptance in
evidence?
If no, could there then have been any existent contract between
Plaintiff and 1st and 2
nd Defendants?..
Suffice to state, in land matters, the burden is on the Plaintiff who
pleads title to prove that title.
This indeed is consistent with the burden of proof in our adjectival
law as contained in the evidence Act. See section 131(1), 132 and 133
(1) and (2) of the Evidence Act 2011.
See also the case of AREMU VS ADETORO (2007) 7 SC (pt. 11).
Plaintiff in the cause of trying to prove his title tendered conveyance
of provisional approval and the documents mentioned supra, which
were all generated on the strength of Exhibit “A”.
44
Exhibit “A” for all intents and purposes, had conditions therein
contained that were meant to be complied with to give legal efficacy
to the offer thereby culminating into a contract.
The said conditions provided for in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said
Exhibit “A” i.e conveyance of provisional approval afore-reproduced
were never complied – with by the Plaintiff thereby leaving the offer
of grant of provisional approval unaccepted by the offeree i.e Plaintiff
in this case.
Having not accepted the said offer of conveyance of provisional
approval as provided under the said grant, I shall go further in view of
the age of the grant which is the 2nd
day of February, 1995, to
ascertain whether 1st and 2
nd Defendants did have or take any step
impliedly, by ratifying the inherent lacunae on the part of the Plaintiff
not to have signed an acceptance copy of the letter that accompanied
the grant of provisional approval and returned same to the applicable
department, to infer acceptance on their part.
It is in evidence that Plaintiff who testified to the effect that he fenced
the said subject matter of litigation did not seek and obtain approval
to so do, neither did Plaintiff obtain approval to commence building
on the said land, having not had any TDP chatted in his favour. Below
is the extract of what Plaintiff said when he was cross – examined by
learned counsel for the 1st and 2
nd Defendants,
Charity Allah O. :- “When did you start work on the land”?
45
Plaintiff :- 1996.
Charity Allah O.:-“Are you aware before you start development you
must have approval”?
Plaintiff.:- Yes.
Charity Allah O.:-“You didn’t have a building approval when you
started developing the land?
Plaintiff :-Yes, I intent to get it.
Charity Allah O.:- “Who destroyed your building?
Plaintiff:- I do not know.
Plaintiff who was led by his counsel in evidence also tendered letter
dated 14th
November, 2008 captioned, re-encroachment on plot No.
560 Gbazango layout Kubwa notice of encroachment which was
marked Exhibit “F”.
In response to Exhibit “F”, 1st and 2
nd Defendants wrote reply to
Plaintiff’s counsel which is contained in Exhibit “G” dated the 27th
August, 2010 captioned, re-complaint of encroachment in respect of
plot No. 560 of about 600m2 at Gbazango layouts.
For ease of reference, I shall re-produce paragraphs 2, (i) and (ii) of
the said Exhibit “G”.
46
Paragraph 2(i)
Please be informed that the zonal planning office has gone through all
its records and policy file received from Abuja Geographical
Information System (AGIS) revealed that:
i
“That plot No. 560 of about 620m2 at Gbazango layout and
name of allottee bearing Mike Egbuna later changed
ownership to Edwin Apochi was duly processed. While the
offer letter bearing Ikechukwu Kelchi Nwamadi was not
processed and is not genuine.”
ii
“The cartographic unit of the zonal land survey confirmed
charting of TDP in favour of Edwin Apochi ride file No. BN –
404.”
Exhibit “DB” dated the 29th
June, 2011 captioned “investigation
report on plot 560 Gbazango layout of about 600m2, tendered by 1st
and 2nd
Defendants, merely corroborates and strengthened the content
of Exhibit “G” supra..
I must be quick to mention forthwith that when attempt to prove title
fails, acts of possession based on that title cannot sustain claim of
title.
47
See UKAEGBU & ORS VS NWLOLO (2009) 3 NWLR (pt.
1127)194 SC. Also see DODO DABO VS ABDULLAHI (2005)2 SC
NJ 76.
Plaintiff who had all the time in this world to have signed acceptance
copy of the conditional conveyance of provisional approval of the
customary right of occupancy aforementioned to create a valid
contract never did that, neither did Plaintiff obtain approval from the
1st and 2
nd Defendants to erect fence round the said subject matter of
dispute and or the DPC erected on the land to infer acceptance on his
part to bund the 1st and 2
nd Defendants.
Certainly, he who seeks equity must as a matter of fact and law do
equity.
Indeed equity does not aid the indolent but the vigilant.
See OGBEIDE VS OSIFO (2007) ALL FWLR (pt. 365) 548 at 566 –
507 paragraphs B-C.
When therefore the claim of Plaintiff is juxtaposed with the evidence
and Exhibits tendered by both Plaintiff and 1st and 2
nd Defendants, it
is ominous that Plaintiff has failed to prove his title to the land in
question.
I truly and wholly agree with the submission of learned counsel for
the 1st and 2
nd Defendants that Plaintiff never in the 1
st place accepted
the offer made to him abinitio within the two months stipulated
therein on the bodies of the said letter of grant.
48
For the purposes of emphasis, Plaintiff in land matters, must establish
his title by leading credible evidence, if he must succeed.
The attitude of Plaintiff, I must say is must lackadaisical and careless.
It his cross, he has to carry it.
Permit me to observe that, the mere fact that an acknowledgment
letter was issued Plaintiff tendered and admitted as Exhibit “E” does
not connote regularisation of the said customary right of occupancy
conveyed in Exhibit “A”, to operate as estoppel. Infact, for such a title
to be deemed regularized, a statutory right of occupancy ought to be
issued in place of the customary right of occupancy by the Hon.
Minister of FCT.
See section 297(2) of the 1999 constitution of Federal Republic of
Nigeria as amended and section 18 of the FCT Act.
On the whole, I am most convinced, after a careful analysis of the
facts of this case visa-vis the evidence adduced that Plaintiff has
failed woefully both in the court of law and morality to establish his
title in line with established principles of law afore – dismissed.
In view of above fact, every other relief sought by Plaintiff as
endorsed on the said writ of summons, must fail, the head of the fish
is rotten, you truly do not expect any part of the fish to be spared.
I shall dismiss the claim of Plaintiff for all the reasons aforementioned
and given against the 1st and 2
nd Defendants.
49
Consequently suit No. FCT/HC/CV/2019/11 is hereby and
accordingly dismissed.
Justice Y. Halilu
Hon. Judge
13th
December, 2012