ELBARAKAT GLOBAL RESOURCES LTD v. GOVERNOR, SOKOTO STATE & ORS (2020)

ELBARAKAT GLOBAL RESOURCES LTD v. GOVERNOR, SOKOTO STATE & ORS

(2020)LCN/14477(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(SOKOTO JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Friday, July 17, 2020

CA/S/33M/2019(R)

Before Our Lordships:

Ali Abubakar Babandi Gumel Justice of the Court of Appeal

Frederick Oziakpono Oho Justice of the Court of Appeal

Abubakar Mahmud Talba Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

ELBARAKAT GLOBAL RESOURCES LTD APPELANT(S)

And

THE GOVERNOR, SOKOTO STATE 2. SOKOTO STATE GOVERNMENT 3. COMMISSIONER, MINISTRY OF LANDS, HOUSING AND SURVEY, SOKOTO 4. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOKOTO STATE RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

WHETHER OR NOT THE ORDERS OF COURT MUST BE OBEYED UNTIL IT IS SET ASIDE

The settled position of the law is that the orders of Court, whether of this one or some other, whether valid or not must be obeyed until it is set aside, as long as it is subsisting; by all no matter how lowly or highly placed in the society. It has never been the law that a party can on its own volition decide to pick or choose, which orders to obey and which not to obey. It is even more serious a thing to disobey a valid and subsisting decision or order of a Court of law, just because the party considers that the said order ought not to have been made in the first place. If at all, a party considers that an order ought not to have been made in the first place, it should be seen to be doing the needful by filing an Appeal against such an order it considers as standing against its interest rather than disobeying it and taking the risks of Courting active legal dangers, with obvious unpleasant consequences.
The apex Court in the case of BABATUNDE & ORS vs. OLATUNJI & ANOR (2000) LPELR-697 (SC) per ACHIKE, JSC had this to say on the subject:
“Matters appertaining to judicial orders or judgments, for that matter are not generally treated with arrogance or levity. Speaking for myself, it is rather officious and treading on perilous path for one to arrogate to oneself the right to choose and pick between Court orders in terms of whether they are valid or null and void. In fact, since there is a strong presumption in favour of the validity of a Court order, it behooves everyone to keep faith with the order of the Court. It makes no difference that ex-facie it appears that the Court that made the order is without jurisdiction because at the end of the day an order of Court subsists and must be obeyed until set aside by a Court of competent jurisdiction. To therefore disobey an order of Court on the fancied belief that the said order is null for any reason whatsoever- even if it subsequently turns out that the order in fact is proved to be null – is a risky and unadvisable decision because until the said order is finally determined to null and void by the Court, the order subsists with the string attaching to it unmitigated.”
See the apex Court in the case of NGERE & ANOR vs. OKURUKET & ORS (2014) LPELR-22883 (SC), where RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C. at Pp. 20-21, Paras. D-A stated thus;
“Parties are thus bound to obey Court orders that are clear and unambiguous, notwithstanding the fact that the order may be wrong. So long as a party refuses to implement or obey a Court order he would not be given a hearing in any subsequent application. See Odogwu v. Odogwu (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt. 225) p.539 Governor of Lagos State v. Ojukwu (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt. 26) p.39…” PER OHO, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT AN AFFIDAVIT FOUNDED ON FALSEHOOD IS WORTHLESS AND INCAPABLE OF ESTABLISHING ANY FACTS

The strict position at law is that an affidavit founded on falsehood or bearing any resemblance of what may suggest the infusion of deliberate misrepresentation of facts, is seldom credited with any iota of belief by the Court and is most often than not consigned to the trash can as it is worthless and incapable of establishing any facts. See the case of MOKWE vs. EZEUKO & ANOR. (2000) 14 NWLR (PT. 686) 143 AT 155; See also PROF. PAUL EMEKA vs. REV. DR. CHIDI OKOROAFOR & ORS (2017) LPELR-41738 (SC). For the foregoing reason, this Court cannot help but discountenance the so called Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondents herein on the 15-4-2019. PER OHO, J.C.A.

FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): By a Motion on Notice brought pursuant to Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act Cap C36 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and Section 6(6) (a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 the Applicant prayed the Court for the following Reliefs:
1. AN ORDER OF COURT that the failure of the Respondents to Re– assess the compensation payable to the Applicant taking into consideration any documentary evidence or other proof produced by the Applicant and interest calculated at the pending bank rate for the delay in payments in the accordance with the provision of Section 29 of the Land Use Act as ordered by the Court of Appeal of Nigeria vides the Court of Appeal decision in Appeal No. CA/S/53/2013 is wrongful and therefore entitles the Applicant to use and or rely on the Valuation Report and Certificate of Value prepared by Uwaga & Co dated the 20th October 2008 which gave the value of the Applicant’s demolished property in the sums of N71,100,000.00 (Seventy One Million, One Hundred Thousand Naira Only).
2. AN ORDER OF COURT that the prevailing banking

interest rates is 27% and when the interest rates is calculated on the sums of N71,100,000.00 (Seventy One Million, One Hundred Thousand Naira Only), the Applicant is entitled to the payments of interest rate pegged at N19,170,000.00 (Nineteen Million, One Hundred and Seventy Thousand Naira) only from January 2010 to December 2017 bringing the total sums of N134,190,000.00 (One Hundred and Thirty Four Million, One Hundred and Ninety Thousand Naira) only or such lesser sums of interest rates as may be determined by this Honourable Court.
3. AN ORDER OF COURT mandating the Respondents to pay the sums of N134,190,000.00 (One Hundred and Thirty-Four Million, One Hundred and Ninety Thousand Naira) only or such lesser sums of interest rates as may be determined by this Honourable Court.
4. Such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.

The grounds for bringing this Application are stated as follows;
a. The Applicant was the Plaintiff in Suit No SS/10/2010 filed against the Respondents before the High Court of Justice, Sokoto Coram, Honourable Justice Bello Duwale.
b. Suit No. SS/10/2010 was determined

in favour of the Applicant in the sums of N27,855,500:00 (Twenty-Seven Million, Eight Hundred and Fifty- Five Thousand, Five Hundred Naira) only.
c. The Applicant appealed against the judgment of the High Court of Justice, Sokoto before the Court of Appeal of Nigeria sitting at Sokoto vides Appeal No. CA/S/53/2013.
d. That the Court of Appeal of Nigeria sitting at Sokoto delivered a judgment setting aside the decision of the High Court of Justice, Sokoto and in its place mandated the Respondents to Re – assess the compensation payable to the Applicant taking into consideration any documentary evidence or other proof produced by him and interest calculated at the pending bank rate for the delay in payment in accordance with the provision of Section 29 of the Land Use Act within 30 days from the date of the judgment.
e. The Applicant made several attempts for the Respondents to re assess the compensation payable but all attempts proved abortive notwithstanding repeated assurances given by the Respondents but which had proved abortive.
f. The only alternative left for the Applicant is to seek redress before this Honourable Court.

Interest of justice.The Application has in its support an Affidavit of four (4) paragraphs sworn to by one Hafina Hussaini, Female, Muslim, Nigerian Citizen, Litigation Secretary of Ibrahim Abdullahi & Co, Behind Umaru Ali Polytechnic, Sokoto; excerpts of which this Court considers appropriate to reproduce at this stage as follows;
“1. That I have the instructions and consent of my employers and those of the Applicant to depose to this affidavit.
2. That Ibrahim Abdullahi Esq., of counsel informed me on the 25th of February, 2019 at the chambers at about 4:30pm of the following facts, the truth of which I verily believed as follows:
a. That the Applicant was the Plaintiff in Suit No. SS/10/2010 filed against the Respondents before the High Court of Justice, Sokoto Coram, Honourable Justice Bello Duwale.
b. That Suit No. SS/10/2010 was determined in favour of the Applicant in the sums of N27, 855,500:00 (Twenty Seven Million, Eight Hundred and Fifty Five Thousand, Five Hundred Naira) only.
c. That the Applicant appealed against the judgment of the High Court of Justice, Sokoto before the Court of Appeal of Nigeria

sitting at Sokoto vides Appeal No. CA/S/53/2013.
d. That the Court of Appeal of Nigeria sitting at Sokoto delivered a judgment setting aside the decision of the High Court of Justice, Sokoto and in its place granted reliefs 43 (I – VI) of the Applicant’s claims and similarly mandated the Respondents to Re – assess the compensation payable to the Applicant taking into consideration any documentary evidence or other proof produced by him and interest calculated at the pending bank rate for the delay in payment of the accordance with the provision of Section 29 of the Land Use Act within 30 days from the date of the judgment. A Copy of the enrolled order is herewith annexed and marked as Exhibit A.
e. That the Applicant made several attempts for the Respondents to re assess the compensation payable but all attempts proved abortive notwithstanding repeated assurances given by the Respondents but which had proved abortive.
f. That one of the attempts made by the Applicant was vides the letter dated the 1st of February 2016 and received by the office of the 1st Respondent on the 9th of February 2016. A Copy of the said letter is

herewith annexed and marked as Exhibit B.
g. That another attempt made by the Applicant was vides the letter dated the 1st of February 2016 and received by the office of the 1st Respondent on the 22nd of August 2016. A Copy of the said letter is herewith annexed and marked as Exhibit C.
h. That a third attempt made by the Applicant was vides the letter dated the 10th of July 2017 written to the 1st Respondent by the solicitors of the Applicant resident at Kaduna State of Nigeria. A Copy of the said letter is herewith annexed and marked as Exhibit D.
i. The in line with the directives of the Court of Appeal of Nigeria relating to re- assessment based on the documentary evidence produced by the Applicant, the petrol filing station of the Applicant was valued in the sums of N71,100,000:00 (Seventy One Million, One Hundred Thousand naira Only). A Copy of the Valuation Report and Certificate of Value prepared by Uwaga & Co (Estate Surveyors and Valuers, Plant and Machinery Valuers, Feasibility Appraisals, Estate Agents, Auctioneers and Project Management Consultants) dated the 20th of October 2008 is herewith annexed and marked as Exhibit E.<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”>

</br<>

That certified true copies of the pictures of the Applicant petrol filing station demolished and for which the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Nigeria sitting at Sokoto was hinged upon are herewith annexed as Exhibits F, F1 – F14 respectively.
k. That the prevailing banking interest rates is 27% and when the interest rates is calculated on the sums of N71,100,000.00 (Seventy One Million, One Hundred Thousand naira Only), it will bring the interest rates at N19,170,000.00 (Nineteen Million, One Hundred and Seventy Thousand Naira) only and from January 2010 to December 2017 it will bring the total sums to be N134,190,000.00 (One Hundred and Thirty Four Million, One Hundred and Ninety Thousand Naira) only.
l. That this rate of interests on the sums of N71,100,000.00 (Seventy One Million, One Hundred Thousand Naira Only) remain unpaid till date.
m. That the sums due to the Applicant arising from the above is in the sums of N134,190,000.00 (One Hundred and Thirty Four Million, One Hundred and Ninety Thousand Naira) only or such lesser sums of interest rates as may be determined by this Honourable Court.
n. That the Applicant who

is an indigene of Sokoto State and whose vision was to bring development to the State has had his dreams broken by the demolition of his Mega filling station since the 2010.
o. That for over eight years running, the Respondents have deprived the Applicant of reaping the benefits of his monies and have the intention of continuously acting as a stumbling block towards the Applicant recovery of his monies.
p. That vide Motion No. SS/M.178/2018, the applicant filed an application for the Court below to enforce the judgment of this Honourable Court amongst other reliefs but the Court below ruled on the 25th of September 2018 that there is nothing it can enforce in the judgment of this Honourable Court but which copy of ruling could not be attached to this affidavit in view of the fact that same has not been made available to the applicant but which shall in due course be relied upon if released to the applicant.
q. That the Respondents are not ready to comply with the orders of this Honourable Court and which orders the Respondents has treated with GREAT IMPUNITY AND OUTMOST DISRESPECT.
r. That the judgment of this Honourable Court has been

treated with great impunity and which has left the decision of this Honourable Court to be in the doldrums since the 30th of September 2015.
s. That the attitude of the Respondents has left the applicant with an empty judgment by treating the decision and or orders of this Honourable Court with GREAT IMPUNITY AND OUTMOST DISRESPECT.
t. That this Honourable Court has the powers to grant the application as prayed more so as the lower Court is not ready to enforce the orders of this Honourable Court.
u. That this Honourable Court has the inherent powers to grant this application as prayed.
v. That the Respondents would not be prejudiced by the grant of this application.
w. That it would be in the interest of justice to grant this application.
x. That this application is made in good faith and not Mala Fide.
4. That I deposed to this affidavit in good faith believing the contents to be true by virtue of my information and knowledge and in accordance with the Oaths Act, 2004.”

On the part of the Respondents, there is filed unto Court a Counter Affidavit of four (4) paragraphs on the 15-4-2019, deposed to by Bello Musa

Esq., Male, Muslim, Nigerian citizen, of Ministry of Justice, Usman Faruk Secretariat, Sokoto excerpts of which this Court considers appropriate to reproduce at this stage as follows;
I, Bello Musa Esq. male, adult, Muslim, Nigerian citizen, of Ministry of Justice, Usman Faruk Secretariat, Sokoto do hereby make oath and state as follows:
1. That I am a Chief State Counsel with the Ministry of Justice, Sokoto State, Usman Faruk Secretariat, Sokoto.
2. That I have the consent and authority of my employers to depose to this counter affidavit and by virtue of my position aforesaid I am conversant with the facts I depose herein.
3. That I was informed by L. S. Wali Esq. Ag. Director Civil Litigation in the Ministry of Justice, Sokoto State at his office at Usman Faruk Secretariat Sokoto, on 1st August, 2018 at about 12pm of the following facts which I verily to be true as follows:-
a. That paragraphs 3 (d), (e), (f), (k), (1), (m), (n), (q), (r), (s), (v), (w) and (x) of the applicant’s affidavit are either partially not true or complete falsehood.
b. That it was never the decision of this Honourable Court that compensation on the

applicant’s demolished filling station should be re- assessed on the basis of a Valuation report drawn up by one Uwaga & Co. (Estate Surveyors and Valuers, Plant and machinery Valuers, Feasibility Appraisals, Estate Agents, Auctioneers and Project Management Consultants) dated 20th October 2008, attached as Exhibit E in the sum of N71,000,000.00 (Seventy-One Million Naira).
c. That at no point in time did the applicant sit with any or agents of the respondents to agree on any copies of pictures of the applicant’s demolished filling station as basis for re-assessment of compensation payable to the applicant.
d. That this Honourable Court also never hinged its decision to order re-assessment of compensation payable to the applicant on Exhibits E and F1 – F14 attached to the applicant’s affidavit in support of this motion.
e. That the prevailing banking interest rate as at 30th September 2015 when the Judgment of this Honourable Court was delivered and 26th February, 2019 when this motion was filed was 27%; the applicant not being a banker is not in a position to determine the interest rates in-between these periods.
f. That this

Honourable Court did not anywhere in its judgment hold that interest rate is to be computed on N71,000,000.00 (seventy-one million Naira).
g. That all this Honourable Court did was to order re-assessment of compensation payable to the applicant by the respondents.
h. That this Honourable Court specifically at page 30 of its judgment held that:
“In view of the provision of Section 47(2) of the Land Use Act barring any Court from enquiring into any question concerning or pertaining to the amount or adequacy of any compensation paid or to be paid under the Land Use Act, the respondents are hereby ordered to re-assess the compensation payable to the appellant, taking into consideration any documentary evidence or other proof produced by him.”
i. That the respondents’ counsel and the Managing Director of the applicant have on various occasions met to discuss compliance with the judgment and orders of this Honourable Court but the applicant failed to produce evidence/other proof of expenditure on the demolished filling station as ordered by this Honourable Court but insisted on using Exhibit E and interest rate at 30%.
J. That but for the

applicant’s insistence on re-assessment based on Exhibit E attached to his affidavit in this motion and its whimsical computation of interest rates, the respondents would have since long complied with the orders of this Honourable Court.
k. That the respondents did not deliberately deprive the applicant of the fruits of his labour save for the reasons advanced in paragraphs (i) and (u) above.
l. That the respondents have always held the orders of this Honourable Court with highest esteem whenever given and have never treated any order of this Court with impunity and disrespect.
m. That the 1st and 4th respondents being members of the legal profession have never and can never treat the orders of this Honourable Court with disdain, contempt or impunity knowing very well the duty they owed in advancing the cause of justice and respect for constituted authorities especially this Honourable Court.
n. That the applicant upon refusal and dismissal of its application for execution of the judgment and orders of this Honourable Court by the lower Court never appealed against the ruling of the lower Court or made an application for execution by

this Honourable Court.
o. That the respondents verily believe that this application is manifestly and grossly incompetent and ought to be struck out.
p. That the respondents will be seriously prejudiced by the grant of this application as constituted especially as it does not accord with the judgment and order(s) of this Honourable Court.
q. That the prayers sought in this application are brought mala-fide and without any just cause.
r. That the respondents are more than willing to comply with the orders of this Honourable Court once the applicant complies with the directives of the Court by providing documentary evidence or other proof for re- assessment of compensation payable to the applicant and on applicable interest rates, other than exhibit E, F1 – F14 as directed by this Honourable Court.
4. That I swear to this affidavit in good faith believing its contents to be correct and true and in accordance with the Oaths Act.

On the 18-4-2019, the Applicant filed a four (4) paragraphs Reply to Counter Affidavit thus:
I, Hanifa Hussaini, Female, Nigeria Citizen, Muslim of Ibrahim Abdullahi & Co, Behind Umaru Ali

Shinkafi Polytechnic Sokoto do hereby make oath and state as follows:
1. That I am one of the litigation secretaries in the law firm of Ibrahim Abdullahi & Co, (Extra Page Law Chambers), one retained Solicitors to the Applicant and by virtue of my position aforesaid, I am very much conversant with the facts of the case.
2. That I have the consent and authority of the Applicant and those of my employers to depose to this reply to counter affidavit.
3. That Ibrahim Abdullahi Esq., of counsel and who is very much conversant with the facts of this case informed me on the 17th of April 2019 at the chambers at about 5:00pm of the following facts the truth of which I verily believed as follows:
a. That he has read the counter affidavit of the Respondents and found the depositions made therein to be manifestly untrue and mutually conflicting.
b. That contrary to paragraph 3a of the counter affidavit, no information was received by the deponent of the counter affidavit on the 1st of August 2018 at about 12pm to give rise to the facts subsequently deposed to in paragraphs 3a – 3r of the counter affidavit.
c. That further to the

above, he knows as a fact that the Applicant’s application and the supporting affidavit thereof was filed on the 26th of February 2019 and same serve on the Respondents in the year 2019.
d. That the depositions in the counter affidavit of the Respondents predates the filing and service of the application of the Applicant on the Respondents.
e. That the depositions of Respondents in paragraphs 3a – 3r of the counter affidavit bears a false facade.
f. That the depositions of Respondents in paragraphs 3a – 3r of the counter affidavit are incompetent.
g. That contrary to paragraphs 3b, 3d & 3e of the counter affidavit, it was the decision of this Honourable Court that the Re-assessment of the compensation payable to the Applicant should be made on the basis that ‘Any Documentary Evidence or other proof produced by the Applicant and interest calculated at the banking rate for the delay in the payments of compensation’.
h. That the valuation Report sought to be relied upon forms part of ‘Any Documentary Evidence or other proof produced by the Applicant’ in line with decision of this Honourable

Court which remains binding on the parties.
i. That contrary to paragraph 3c of the counter affidavit, the Respondents never gave the Applicant any opportunity to sit with them to front his claims in compliance with the orders of this Honourable Court notwithstanding repeated written demands in that respect and the Respondents have continued to be in defiance of the orders of this Honourable Court.
j. That contrary to paragraph 3e of the counter affidavit, the Respondents have not stated to the contrary, what the prevailing interest rate is in opposition to the interest rate as stated by the Applicant.
k. That contrary to paragraphs 3g – 3h of the counter affidavit, the orders of this Honourable Court is as stated in the enrolled order of this Honourable Court annexed as exhibit A in the supporting affidavit of the Applicant and same cannot be varied by the counter affidavit of the Respondents in the absence of any appeal setting aside the decision of this Honourable Court.
l. That contrary to paragraphs 3i & 3j of the counter affidavit, at no time did the Respondent’s counsel and the Managing Director of the Applicant meet

and discuss and the Applicant requested to produce evidence/other proof of expenditure on the demolished filing station in compliance with the orders of this Honourable Court but rather counsel to the Respondents had through counsel to the Applicant lamented on the unwillingness of the Respondents to comply with the orders of this Honourable Court.
m. That neither the Applicant nor any of its officers are in receipt of any written or oral invitation for discussions with the Respondents on the compliance with the orders of this Honourable Court while all the letters written by the Applicant were not responded to by the Respondents.
n. That further to the above, the Respondents in a counter affidavit filed before the High Court of Justice Sokoto in Suit No. SS/M.178/2018 never indicated that they ever or through their counsel met with the Applicant or any of its officers to discuss compliance with the judgment and or orders of this Honourable Court. A copy of the said counter affidavit is herewith annexed as Exhibit R1.
o. That in addition, the hitherto application containing the reliefs of the Applicant that was filed at the Court below in Motion

No. SS/M.178/2018 to which the counter affidavit of the Respondents was filed is herewith annexed as Exhibit R2.
p. That in paragraph 3.5 of the written address of the Respondents to Motion No. SS/M.178/2018, the Respondents held no objection to the execution of the judgment of this Honourable Court. A copy of the said written address is herewith annexed and marked as Exhibit R3.
q. That sequel to the above, it is highly unprofessional for counsel to the Respondents to deny the existence of facts that the Respondents had conceded to and or allude to facts that does not represent the true states of affairs of a case and even the denial of the precise orders of this Honourable Court.
r. That contrary to paragraphs 3k, 3l & 3m of the counter affidavit and arising from the true facts as stated by the Applicant, the Respondents have not only treated the orders of this Honourable Court with disdain but with great impunity and they have continued to be in impunity of the orders of this Honourable Court.
s. That contrary to paragraphs 3n & 3o of the counter affidavit, Motion No. SS/M.178/2018 hitherto filed at the Court below was never

dismissed but was merely struck out on the grounds that based on the orders of this Honourable Court, the Court below sees nothing it can enforce. A copy of the enrolled order of the Court below is herewith annexed as Exhibit R4.
t. That further to the above, the mere striking out of the said application does not preclude the filing of an application before this Honourable Court in respect of the decision of this Honourable Court for the Court to make any consequential orders it deems fit in the circumstances and therefore this application is competent.
u. That contrary to paragraph 3p of the counter affidavit, the Respondents who have continued to be in disrespect to the orders of this Honourable Court cannot claims that they would be prejudiced by the grant of this application.
v. That contrary to paragraph 3q of the counter affidavit, the application of the Applicant is made bonafide and in pursuit of a legal right.
w. That contrary to paragraphs 3r of the counter affidavit, the Respondents are not ready to comply with the decision of this Honourable Court as they have not shown any willingness to do same.
4. That I deposed to this

Reply to counter affidavit in good faith conscientiously believing its contents to be true and correct by virtue of the Oath Act, 2004.”

On the 7-10-2019, the Applicant also filed a Further Reply to the Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondents as follows:
I, Hanifa Hussaini, Female, Muslim, Nigerian Citizen, Litigation Secretary of Ibrahim Abdullahi & Co, Behind Umaru Ali Polytechnic, Sokoto doth hereby make oath and states as follows:
1. That I am one of the litigation secretaries in the law firm of Messrs Ibrahim Abdullahi & Co Solicitors to the Applicant and as such, I am very much conversant with the facts of this case.
2. That I have the instructions and consent of my employers and those of the Applicant to depose to this affidavit.
3. That Ibrahim Abdullahi Esq of counsel informed me on the 25th of February, 2019 at the chambers at about 4:30pm of the following facts, the truth of which I verily believed as follows:
y. That the Applicant was the Plaintiff in Suit No. SS/10/2010 filed against the Respondents before the High Court of Justice, Sokoto Coram, Honourable Justice Bello Duwale.
z. That Suit No.

SS/10/2010 was determined in favour of the Applicant in the sums of N27, 855,500.00 (Twenty Seven Million, Eight Hundred and Fifty Five Thousand, Five Hundred Naira) only.
aa. That the Applicant appealed against the judgment of the High Court of Justice, Sokoto before the Court of Appeal of Nigeria sitting at Sokoto vides Appeal No. CA/S/53/2013.
bb. That the Court of Appeal of Nigeria sitting at Sokoto delivered a judgment setting aside the decision of the High Court of Justice, Sokoto and in its place granted reliefs 43 (I – VI) of the Applicant’s claims and similarly mandated the Respondents to Re – assess the compensation payable to the Applicant taking into consideration any documentary evidence or other proof produced by him and interest calculated at the pending bank rate for the delay in payment of the accordance with the provision of Section 29 of the Land Use Act within 30 days from the date of the judgment. A Copy of the enrolled order is herewith annexed and marked as Exhibit A.
cc. That the Applicant made several attempts for the Respondents to re assess the compensation payable but all attempts proved abortive

notwithstanding repeated assurances given by the Respondents but which had proved abortive.
dd. That one of the attempts made by the Applicant was vides the letter dated the 1st of February 2016 and received by the office of the 1st Respondent on the 9th of February 2016. A Copy of the said letter is herewith annexed and marked as Exhibit B.
ee. That another attempt made by the Applicant was vides the letter dated the 1st of February 2016 and received by the office of the 1st Respondent on the 22nd of August 2016. A Copy of the said letter is herewith annexed and marked as Exhibit C.
ff. That a third attempt made by the Applicant was vides the letter dated the 10th of July 2017 written to the 1st Respondent by the solicitors of the Applicant resident at Kaduna State of Nigeria. A Copy of the said letter is herewith annexed and marked as Exhibit D.
gg. The in line with the directives of the Court of Appeal of Nigeria relating to re – assessment based on the documentary evidence produced by the Applicant, the petrol filing station of the Applicant was valued in the sums of N71,100,000.00 (Seventy One Million, One Hundred Thousand naira

Only). A Copy of the Valuation Report and Certificate of Value prepared by Uwaga & Co (Estate Surveyors and Valuers, Plant and Machinery Valuers, Feasibility Appraisals, Estate Agents, Auctioneers and Project Management Consultants) dated the 20th of October 2008 is herewith annexed and marked as Exhibit E.
hh. That certified true copies of the pictures of the Applicant petrol filing station demolished and for which the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Nigeria sitting at Sokoto was hinged upon are herewith annexed as Exhibits F, F1 – F14 respectively.
ii. That the prevailing banking interest rates is 27% and when the interest rates is calculated on the sums of N71,100,000.00 (Seventy One Million, One Hundred Thousand naira Only), it will bring the interest rates at N19,170,000.00 (Nineteen Million, One Hundred and Seventy Thousand Naira) only and from January 2010 to December 2017 it will bring the total sums to be N134,190,000.00 (One Hundred and Thirty Four Million, One Hundred and Ninety Thousand Naira) only.
jj. That this rate of interests on the sums of N71,100,000.00 (Seventy One Million, One Hundred Thousand Naira Only) remain

unpaid till date.
kk. That the sums due to the Applicant arising from the above is in the sums of N134,190,000:00 (One Hundred and Thirty Four Million, One Hundred and Ninety Thousand Naira) only or such lesser sums of interest rates as may be determined by this Honourable Court.
ll. That the Applicant who is an indigene of Sokoto State and whose vision was to bring development to the State has had his dreams broken by the demolition of his Mega filling station since the 2010.
mm. That for over eight years running, the Respondents have deprived the Applicant of reaping the benefits of his monies and have the intention of continuously acting as a stumbling block towards the Applicant recovery of his monies.
nn. That vide Motion No. SS/M.178/2018, the applicant filed an application for the Court below to enforce the judgment of this Honourable Court amongst other reliefs but the Court below ruled on the 25th of September 2018 that there is nothing it can enforce in the judgment of this Honourable Court but which copy of ruling could not be attached to this affidavit in view of the fact that same has not been made available to the applicant

but which shall in due course be relied upon if released to the applicant.
oo. That the Respondents are not ready to comply with the orders of this Honourable Court and which orders the Respondents have treated with GREAT IMPUNITY AND OUTMOST DISRESPECT.
pp. That the judgment of this Honourable Court has been treated with great impunity and which has left the decision of this Honourable Court to be in the doldrums since the 30th of September 2015.
qq. That the attitude of the Respondents has left the applicant with an empty judgment by treating the decision and or orders of this Honourable Court with GREAT IMPUNITY AND OUTMOST DISRESPECT.
rr. That this Honourable Court has the powers to grant the application as prayed more so as the lower Court is not ready to enforce the orders of this Honourable Court.
ss. That this Honourable Court has the inherent powers to grant this application as prayed.
tt. That the Respondents would not be prejudiced by the grant of this application.
uu. That it would be in the interest of justice to grant this application.
vv. That this application is made in good faith and not Mala Fide.”

In arguing this Application, learned Applicant’s Counsel placed reliance on the Affidavit in support and the attached Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, F1 – F14. Counsel also placed reliance on the Applicant’s Reply to Counter Affidavit filed on the 18-4-2019 and a further Reply to Counter Affidavit filed on the 7-10-2019. Counsel also identified an issue for the determination of the Court thus;
“Whether the Applicant is entitled to the grant of the reliefs sought for?”

In arguing this issue learned Counsel identified the grounds upon which the motion had been considered necessary to be filed and submitted that the grant or refusal of the application depends on the discretion of Court, which must be exercised judiciously and judicially. See the cases of THE OWNERS OF THE M. V. LUPEX vs. NIGERIAN OVERSEAS CHARTERING AND SHIPPING LTD. (2003) LPELR-3195 (SC); FEDERAL HOUSING AUTHORITY vs. ABOSEDE (1998) LPELR-1268(SC).

It was further submitted for the Applicant that apart from the orders and sections of the law under which this application has been brought and which vests powers on this Court to grant

same, under the provisions of Order 20 Rule 5 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016 this Court can enforce its own judgment without the necessity of directing the Court below to do same. For purposes of emphasis, Counsel reproduced the Order, which reads as follows;
“Any judgment given by the Court may be enforced by the Court or the Court below or by any other Court, which has been seised of the matter as the Court may direct”.

In the argument of Counsel still, this provision of the law has been given judicial interpretation by this Court in the case of DASHE & ORS vs. JATAU & ORS (2016) LPELR-40180(CA) per T. TUR, JCA (OBM), where the Court stated thus;
“Order 19 Rules 5-6 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2011 provides as follows: 5. Any judgment given by the Court may be enforced by the Court or by the Court below or by any other Court, which has been seised of the matters, as the Court may direct. 6. When the Court directs any judgment to be enforced by another Court, a certificate under the seal of the Court and the hand of the Presiding Justice setting forth the judgment shall be transmitted by the Registrar to such other Court,

and the latter shall enforce such judgment in terms of the certificate.”

Against the backdrop of the foregoing, Counsel submitted that Exhibit A annexed to the supporting affidavit is the enrolled order of the decision of this Court delivered on the 30th day of September,2015 and stated that it is that decision that is being sought to be enforced in this application. According to Counsel, the effect of the said decision is that it set aside the decision of the Court below delivered in Suit No: SS/10/2010 and granted in its place the Reliefs 43 (1 – VI) of the Applicant’s claims and similarly mandated the Respondents to ‘Re – assess the compensation payable to the Applicant taking into consideration any documentary evidence or other proof produced by him and interest calculated at the pending bank rate for the delay in payment in accordance with the provision of Section 29 of the Land Use Act, within 30 days from the date of the judgment’.

The Court was also informed by Counsel that Exhibits B, C & D are all letters written to the 1st Respondent as the Chief Executive of Sokoto State demanding compliance with the

decision of the Court of Appeal, but all to no avail. By way of emphasis Counsel stated that the content of Exhibit A, is that the Respondents to Re – assess the compensation payable to the Applicant taking into consideration any documentary evidence or other proof produced by him and interest calculated at the pending bank rate for the delay in payment in accordance with the provision of Section 29 of the Land Use Act. But that going by the depositions of the Applicant, it has been shown beyond doubt that the Respondents are not ready to carry out the orders of the Court of Appeal and thence the Applicant annexed Exhibits E, F, F1 – F14 which are copies of the valuation Report prepared since 20th of October, 2008 which are part of the documents that the Applicant has since the institution of the case and up to the appeal level have all had the nod of the Court of Appeal in its decision.

Counsel also contended that since the 30th day of September, 2015 when the decision of this Court was delivered, the Respondents have not availed themselves of the opportunity of making any re – assessment as directed by the Court in its decision and

argued that in the light of this position, the Applicant cannot continue to wait ad infinitum and thence the need for the instant application.

Learned Counsel also contended that the Respondents made a feeble attempt at alleging that they had through their Counsel met on severally occasions with the Applicants Managing Director and that the Applicant failed to produce evidence or proof of the expenditures on the demolished filing station; an allegation which the Applicant denied in paragraphs 3i & 3m of the Reply to the Counter affidavit of the Respondents. In any event, Counsel further argued that the time, place and date of such meetings were conspicuously absent in the assertions of the Respondents.

Similarly, he said that there were no written documents exhibited by the Respondents showing any form of invitation served on the Applicant to attend any purported meetings that was geared towards compliance with the orders of this Court. What is more, Counsel argued that Exhibits R1 & R3 have shown beyond any form of doubt the level of misrepresentations made by the Respondents in their Counter affidavit before this Court, when same is

balanced with that filed at the Court below.

Counsel said that the Respondents in a Counter Affidavit filed before the High Court of Justice Sokoto in Suit No. SS/M.178/2018 (Exhibit R1) never indicated that they ever or through their Counsel met with the Applicant or any of its officers to discuss compliance with the judgment and/or orders of this Court. In the same vein, the Respondents in paragraph 3.5 of the written address of the Respondents to Motion No. SS/M.178/2018 vide Exhibit R3, raised no objections to the execution of the judgment of this Court as per relief one (1) contained on the face of the reliefs as couched in Exhibit R2 annexed to the supporting affidavit.

Learned Counsel, therefore submitted for the Applicant that as Counsel and ministers in the temple of justice, they owe a duty to this Court to assist the Court in arriving at the justice of the case and not to twist the facts of the case with the aim of overreaching a particular party including even the denial of the precise orders of this Court. According to Counsel, this is the discipline of the law. Counsel cited the case of AGORO vs. AROMOLARAN & ANOR (2011) LPELR-8906(CA).

On the issue of the order of the Court of Appeal in Exhibit A for the calculation of interest at pending bank interest rates, Counsel submitted that the Applicant has shown vides his Affidavit evidence that the prevailing interest rates is 27% and that 27% interest rates in respect of the sums of N71,100,000:00 (Seventy One Million, One Hundred Thousand Naira Only), will bring the interest rates at N19, 170, 000:00 (Nineteen Million, One Hundred and Seventy Thousand Naira)only and which sums has remained unpaid till date.

It was further submitted by Counsel that even the Respondents have the perquisite right under Order 8 Rules 8(1) and (2) of the Judgment Enforcement Rules Cap 407 LFN 1990 as amended to apply to this Court where they dispute the amount said to be outstanding as Judgment debt or interest for an enquiry into the actual amount of money that is owed to the judgment creditor. Counsel referred this Court to the case of IKONO LOCAL GOVT vs. DE BEACON FINANCE & SEC. LTD (2002) FWLR (PT. 114) 415 AT 422 R 1.

Learned Counsel further argued that the orders of this Court whether valid or not must be obeyed until it is

set aside, as long as it is subsisting by all no matter how lowly or highly placed in society. He said that an act of disobedience towards an order of a Court can render any further act by those who have acted disobediently to sanctions from other Court because no Court would want its orders flouted. Counsel buttressed his arguments with the observation of DENTON-WEST, J.C.A. in the case of BALONWU vs. OBI (2007) 5 NWLR (PT. 1028) 488 AT 538 PARAS.C- E,564-565 PARAS.B – G (CA).

It was also submitted for the Applicant that as long as the Respondents are in continued disobedience of the orders of this Court, they are not entitled to a hearing on this application. See the apex Court in the case of NGERE & ANOR vs. OKURUKET & ORS (2014) LPELR-22883(SC).

As it has to do with the Counter Affidavit of the Respondent, learned Counsel contended that it bears a false façade and that no reasonable Court can place reliance on same and therefore, that it never countered the solid facts deposed to in the supporting affidavit. For this reason, Counsel argued that the depositions in the Counter Affidavit of the Respondents predate the filing and

service of the application of the Applicant on the Respondents. As far as Counsel is concerned the defect is not a matter of form but substantial and therefore ought to be so declared and struck out. See the case of UBA PLC vs. OSULA (2002) LPELR-7176(CA). In addition to the forgoing, Counsel contended that the depositions of Respondents in paragraphs 3a – 3r of the counter affidavit also bears false façade and are therefore incompetent and ought to be struck out. He argued that if same is struck out, then the Counter Affidavit becomes worthless and unworthy of any consideration. Learned Counsel therefore, urged this Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Applicant and against the Respondents.

There is nothing complicated in the facts leading to the filing of this Application. In short, the facts are as clear as daylight. Here, the Applicant was the Plaintiff in Suit No: SS/10/2010 filed against the Respondents at the High Court of Justice, Sokoto. The suit was subsequently determined in favour of the Applicant in the sums of N27,855,500:00 (Twenty Seven Million, Eight Hundred and Fifty Five Thousand, Five Hundred Naira) only. The

Applicant appealed against the judgment of the High Court of Justice, Sokoto before this Court, vide Appeal No. CA/S/53/2013.

This Court, on the 30-9-2015 delivered a judgment setting aside the decision of the High Court of Sokoto State and in its place mandated the Respondents to Re – assess the compensation payable to the Applicant taking into consideration any documentary evidence or other proof produced by him and interest calculated at the pending bank rate for the delay in payment in accordance with the provision of Section 29 of the Land Use Act within 30 days from the date of the judgment.

Thereafter, the Applicant made several attempts to have the Respondents re- assess the compensation payable to the Applicant but all attempts proved abortive notwithstanding repeated assurances given by the Respondents, but which they failed to honour. The Applicant now decided to take the only options available to it to seek redress a before this Court.

In arguing this Application, learned Applicant’s Counsel Ibrahim Abdullahi Esq., told Court of the reliance placed on the Affidavit in support and the attached Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F,

F1 – F14. Counsel also placed reliance on the Applicant’s Reply to Counter Affidavit filed on the 18-4-2019 and a further Reply to Counter Affidavit filed on the 7-10-2019 and identified an issue for the determination of the Court thus;
“Whether the Applicant is entitled to the grant of the reliefs sought for?”

The contention of learned Applicant’s Counsel is that the Respondents simply failed, refused and/or neglected to obey the orders made by this Court directing the Respondents to Re – assess the compensation payable to the Applicant taking into consideration any documentary evidence or other proof produced by him and interest calculated at the pending bank rate for the delay in payment in accordance with the provision of Section 29 of the Land Use Act within 30 days from the date of the judgment.

pick or choose, which orders to obey and which not to obey. It is even more serious a thing to disobey a valid and subsisting decision or order of a Court of law, just because the party considers that the said order ought not to have been made in the first place. If at all, a party considers that an order ought not to have been made in the first place, it should be seen to be doing the needful by filing an Appeal against such an order it considers as standing against its interest rather than disobeying it and taking the risks of Courting active legal dangers, with obvious unpleasant consequences.
The apex Court in the case of BABATUNDE & ORS vs. OLATUNJI & ANOR (2000) LPELR-697 (SC) per ACHIKE, JSC had this to say on the subject:
“Matters appertaining to judicial orders or judgments, for that matter are not generally treated with arrogance or levity. Speaking for myself, it is rather officious and treading on perilous path for one to arrogate to oneself the right to choose and pick between Court orders in terms of whether they are valid or null and void. In fact, since there is a strong presumption in favour of the validity of a Court

order, it behooves everyone to keep faith with the order of the Court. It makes no difference that ex-facie it appears that the Court that made the order is without jurisdiction because at the end of the day an order of Court subsists and must be obeyed until set aside by a Court of competent jurisdiction. To therefore disobey an order of Court on the fancied belief that the said order is null for any reason whatsoever- even if it subsequently turns out that the order in fact is proved to be null – is a risky and unadvisable decision because until the said order is finally determined to null and void by the Court, the order subsists with the string attaching to it unmitigated.”
See the apex Court in the case of NGERE & ANOR vs. OKURUKET & ORS (2014) LPELR-22883 (SC), where RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C. at Pp. 20-21, Paras. D-A stated thus;
“Parties are thus bound to obey Court orders that are clear and unambiguous, notwithstanding the fact that the order may be wrong. So long as a party refuses to implement or obey a Court order he would not be given a hearing in any subsequent application. See Odogwu v. Odogwu (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt. 225) p.539

Governor of Lagos State v. Ojukwu (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt. 26) p.39…”

To make matters rather worse for the case of the Respondent, which they tried very unsuccessfully to put up, their Counter affidavit filed in this matter is caught napping unfortunately and obviously gasping from breadth from the enormity of the falsehood inherent in its deposition. It is at once clear from the contents of Exhibits R1 and R3 that the Respondents made clear misrepresentations in their Counter affidavit filed in this Court when same is put side by side the one filed at the Court below. The Respondents in a Counter affidavit filed before the High Court of Justice Sokoto in Suit No. SS/M.178/2018 (Exhibit R1) never indicated that they ever or through their Counsel met with the Applicant or any of its officers to discuss compliance with the judgment and or orders of this Court.

worthless and incapable of establishing any facts. See the case of MOKWE vs. EZEUKO & ANOR. (2000) 14 NWLR (PT. 686) 143 AT 155; See also PROF. PAUL EMEKA vs. REV. DR. CHIDI OKOROAFOR & ORS (2017) LPELR-41738 (SC). For the foregoing reason, this Court cannot help but discountenance the so called Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondents herein on the 15-4-2019.

In addition to the foregoing, a close perusal of the processes shows that the Respondents in paragraph 3.5 of their written address filed at the Court below in support of the Respondents’ Motion No. SS/M.178/2018 vide Exhibit R3 in this proceedings, virtually raised no objections to the execution of the judgment of this Court as per relief one (1) contained on the face of the reliefs as couched in exhibit R2 annexed to the supporting affidavit in the Application.

Against the backdrop of the foregoing, this application is adjudged meritorious and it is accordingly ORDERED AND GRANTED AS FOLLOWS:
1. AN ORDER OF COURT is HEREBY GRANTED that the failure of the Respondents to Re-assess the compensation payable to the Applicant taking into consideration any documentary evidence

or other proof produced by the Applicant and interests calculated at the prevailing bank rate for the delay in payment and in accordance with the provision of Section 29 of the Land Use Act; within 30 days as ordered by this Court vide the order made in Appeal No. CA/S/53/2013 is WRONGFUL.
2. AN ORDER OF COURT is HEREBY MADE GRANTING the Applicant the use of and/or reliance on the Valuation Report and Certificate prepared by Uwaga & Co. dated the 20th October, 2008 in the assessment of the value of the Applicant’s demolished property, which is subject of this matter.
3. AN ORDER OF COURT is HEREBY GRANTED mandating the Respondents to pay to the Applicant, all sums of money Certificate prepared by Uwaga & Co. dated the 20th October, 2008 in addition to accumulated interests calculated at the prevailing Bank’s rate of interests.
4. The parties are to bear their respective costs.

ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL, J.C.A.: I agree.

ABUBAKAR MAHMUD TALBA, J.C.A.: I have read the draft of the Ruling just delivered by my learned brother, FREDERICK O. OHO JCA, and I entirely agree with his reasoning and conclusions.

I have nothing to add to a well written Ruling.
I abide by the consequential orders made and parties are to bear their respective cost.

Appearances:

IBRAHIM ABDULLAHI, Esq. For Appellant(s)

Respondents were not represented in Court For Respondent(s)