MR. EUGENE OBI OKOYE & ANOR v. BEATITUDES NIGERIA LIMITED (2014)

MR. EUGENE OBI OKOYE & ANOR v. BEATITUDES NIGERIA LIMITED

(2014)LCN/7123(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Tuesday, the 15th day of April, 2014

CA/E/175/2007

RATIO

WORDS OR PHRASES: LOCUS STANDI

Locus standi or standing to sue is the legal right of a party to an action to be heard in litigation before a court of law or tribunal. A person is said to have locus standi if he has shown sufficient interest in the action and that his civil rights and obligations have been or are in danger of being infringed.
[OLAGUNJU V. YAHAYA (1998) 3 NWLR (PT.542) 501, OKAFOR V ASOH (1999) 3 NWLR (PT. 593) 35, NNUBIA v. A.G. RIVERS STATE (1999) 3 NWLR (PT.593) 82, OGUNMOKUN v MIL ADM.OSUN STATE (1999) 3 NWLR (PT.594) 261, IBRAHIM V. INEC (1999) 8 NWLR (614) 334 and GUDA V KITTA (1999) 12 NWLR (PT.629) 21.

It is trite that for a litigant to invoke the judicial power of the court in realm of public law, he must show sufficient interest or threat of injury he has or will suffer from the infringement complained of. This interest or injury test is the yardstick in determining the question of the locus standi of a complaint and it is to be determined in the light of the facts or special circumstances of each case.
[A.G.AKWA IBOM STATE V. ESSTEN (2004) 7 NWLR (PT.872] 288. PER ABUBAKAR JEGA ABDULKADIR, J.C.A.

JUSTICES

ABUBAKAR JEGA ABDULKADIR Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

ADZIRA GANA MSHELIA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

1. MR. EUGENE OBI OKOYE
2. EUGYKEN TRADING AND INDUSTRIES (NIG) LTD. Appellant(s)

AND

BEATITUDES NIGERIA LIMITED Respondent(s)

ABUBAKAR JEGA ABDULKADIR, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is appeal against the decision of the High Court of Justice, Anambra State sitting at Onitsha Judicial Division as presided over by Hon. Justice J. C. Nwadi on 23rd June, 2006.
The Respondent herein commenced an action on 3rd February 2005 by Writ of Summons against the Appellants herein. In its 24 paragraph Statement of claim, the Respondent’s claim against the Appellants are as follows:
“(a) A declaration that the plaintiff is the lessee for a term of 99 years from the 1st of January 1979 of all that parcel of land situate within the Niger Bridgehead Industrial Layout, Onitsha numbered as plots IND/65 and IN/67 thereof and containing an area of 1.732 hectares which parcel of land is shown in plan number (A) 107, tracing No. AN – 372 attached to Deed of Building lease dated the 8th day of August 1979 and registered at No. 23 at page 23 in volume 1041 in the Lands Registry in the office now at Awka.
(b) A declaration that as the said lease subsists, the plaintiff is entitled to exclusive possession of the demised plots of land and to the use of the verge between plot IN/55 and the public highway called Atani Road for access to the said highway.
(c) N1,000,000.00 being damages for trespass.
(d) An injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, their servants or agents otherwise however from entering into the plaintiff’s land known as plot IN/65 and IN/67 Niger Bridgehead Industrial Layout, Onitsha or into the road verge between the said plot IN/65 and the public highway called Atani Road or from erecting any structure thereon.”
The Appellants, on 24/2/2006 filed 18 paragraphs statement of defence dated 24/2/2006. Following the statement of defence, the Respondents on 10/3/2006 filed a motion on notice dated the same day, praying the trial court for:
“An order striking out this suit, that is, suit No.0/55/2005. The Beatitude (Nigeria) Ltd Vs Mr. Eugene Obi Okoye and Anor for lack of locus standi on the part of the plaintiff/Respondent and want of jurisdiction”.
The above motion on notice was supported by 11 paragraph affidavit and a Written Address. In reaction to the motion for an order to strike out the suit, the Respondent filed a counter affidavit of 5 paragraphs with an Exhibit annexed thereto and a written address of counsel.
The trial court in its ruling of 23/6/2005, dismissing the Appellants’ motion held that the Respondent had the capacity or locus standi to institute the instant action. The Appellants in disagreement with the ruling of the trial court filed a Notice of Appeal dated 2nd June, 2006 and filed on 5/6/2006. The Notice of Appeal contains four Grounds of Appeal.
The said Grounds of Appeal shorn of their particulars read thus:

“Ground One – Error in law
The learned trial judge erred in law when he failed to hold that the cause of action has abated after the revocation of the Building Lease.
Ground Two – Error in Law
The learned trial judge erred in law when he held that, “it is true that the revocation action is a sort of an
intervening action but it may affect part of the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff/Respondent. The count (sic) is satisfied that the revocation action does not affect the cause of action in this suit, which is trespass, by the Defendant to the property revoked. A plaintiff in an action need not get all the reliefs sought. Perhaps in this particular case the Plaintiff may need to effect some amendments as regards the reliefs sought.”
Ground Three – Error in Law
The learned trial judge erred in law by failing to consider that after the Revocation of the Building Lease dated 8/8/79 and Registered as No. 23 at page 23 in volume L04I in the office of the Lands Registry now at Awka the Plaintiff’s locus standi has extinguished.
Ground Four – Error in Law
The learned trial judge erred in Law when he failed to consider material facts contained in the affidavit of the Defendants/Applicants before dismissing the motion to strike out the entire suit”.
In accordance with the Rules of this Honourable Court, the parties through their legal representatives filed, exchanged and adopted their Briefs of Argument in support of their contentions and stand on the appeal. The Appeal was taken on 5th February, 2014.
The Appellants’ Brief of Argument dated 26th March, 2008 and filed on 27th March 2008 was settled by J. R. Nduka Esq. The Respondent’s Brief of Argument undated and filed on 29th April, 2013 was settled by CHIEDOZIE OGBUELI ESQ.
In his Brief of Argument, the learned counsel for the Appellants formulated a lone issue for determination in the instant appeal. The sole issue for determination reads thus:

“Issue for Determination
Whether the Plaintiff’s cause of action survived the revocation of the leasehold interest held in respect of the property known as and called Plot IN/65 and IN/57 Niger Bridgehead Industrial Layout, Onitsha by the Plaintiff.
In his argument on the sole issue for determination the learned counsel for the Appellant’s referred to the claims of the Respondent in the suit. He asks whether the Respondent has any interest when its interest in Plot IN/65 and IN/67 Niger Bridgehead Industrial Layout, Onitsha has been revoked. He refers to the case of SAVAGE Vs UWAECHIA (1972) 3 SC 225, 232, (1972) AWLR (Pt.1) 251 at 257 on the definition of cause of action. He also referred to the cases of AKIBU v. ODUNTAN (2000) 13 NWLR (PT.685) page 446 at 465, E – H, FADARE V A.G. OYO STATE (1982) 4 SC. 1, KUDUSA V SOKOTO N.A (1968) 1 ANLR 377, MURMANSK STAT STEANSHIP LINE V THE KANO OIL MILLERS LTD (1974) 12 SCL.
It is the further contention of the Appellants’ counsel that upon the intervening act of loss of the leasehold, the cause of action automatically ceased to exist or put differently, the plaintiff upon the new development lost the plank upon which it was standing and from which it derived its locus standi. He refers to the cases of ANON LODGE HOTELS ITD Vs MERCHANTILE BANK (NIG) LTD (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt.284) 721 AT 732 C – D, A.G. ANAMBRA STATE Vs A.G. FEDERATION (1993) 6 NWLR (PT. 302) 692 AT 742 PARA F; I. K. MARTINS (NIG) LTD Vs U.P.L. (1992) 1 NWLR (PT 217) 322 AT 333, WESTERN STEEL WORKERS UNION OF NIGERIA (1987) 1 NWLR (PT.49) 284 AT 305.
The learned counsel respectfully urges this Honourable Court to resolve that the Plaintiff’s cause of action did not survive the revocation of the leasehold interest held in respect of the property known as and called plots IN/65 and IN/67 Niger Bridgehead, Industrial Layout, Onitsha.
The learned counsel for the Respondent adopts the sole issue formatted by the Appellants for determination of the instant appeal.
In raising his argument on the issue, the learned counsel for the Respondent contends that the document conveying the revocation was made as a result of the suit that was taken against the Defendant. He refers to the case of KLIFCO (NIG) LTD VS NSITFMB CA (2005) 6 NWLR (PT.992) 451 RATTO 9.

The learned counsel argues that the Anambra State Government became interested in the Land in dispute, hence it revoked the said Land without notice, being fully aware that there is a pending court action by the Respondent against the Appellants over the said Land. He refers to paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the Respondent’s Statement of Claim. He further cites the cases of P.V.C LTD vs LAWAL (2005) 3 NWLR (PT.911) page 125 RATIO 3, ANPP vs ROASSO (2005) 6 NWLR (PT. 920).
The learned counsel reproduced the Judgment Order pursuant to suit No.0/427/2005 between the Beatitude Nig. Ltd. Vs Governor of Anambra State as exhibited at page 26 of the Record of Appeal. He further referred the court to the cases of FALOLA VS UBA PLC (2005) 7 NWLR (PT.924) 42 RATIO 7, GONZE (NIG) LTD VS NERDC (2005) 13 NWLR (PT. 943) AT 637 RATIO 1. He maintains that the decision of the Anambra High Court of Justice sitting at Onitsha per C.E. IYIZOBA as reached on 17/11/2008 in Suit No.0/427/2005 has not been appealed against, by the Governor of Anambra State. On the whole, he maintains that the learned trial Judge dealt extensively with the issue of locus standi and revocation by an interested party while a matter is subsisting in court. He refers this court to pages 52 and 53 of the record of appeal. He added that the Anambra State Government vide a letter dated 10/01/2007 signed by G.O. Obunadike rescinded its earlier decision, revoking the Land.
In conclusion, the learned counsel urges that the appeal be dismissed with heavy cost.
I have carefully read through the record of appeal as compiled and transmitted to this court from the lower court on the agreement of the parties to this appeal. I have also read through the various contentions of the learned counsel for the parties in the appeal. I will therefore now proceed to determine the appeal based on the sole issue adopted by the parties as earlier reproduced at page 5 of this Judgment.
I found at page 1 of the record a Writ of Summons dated 3rd February, 2005 as commencement of the instant suit by the Respondent, against the Appellants. At page 24 of the record is a letter dated 19th July, 2005, signed by the Permanent Secretary – Chidi Ezeoke, notifying the Managing Director of the Respondent that the Governor of Anambra State has revoked the Land in dispute. I also found at page 26 of the record, a 57 paragraph Statement of Claim against the Governor of Anambra State in Suit No.0/427/2005, challenging the revocation of the land in dispute.
The propelling wind of litigation that brought the instant appeal was the motion filed by the Appellant praying the trial court to strike out the suit of the Respondent on the ground that it lacks locus standi to maintain such an action, the reason given, being that since the Land being claimed by the Respondent has been revoked, there is no existing interest in favour of the Respondent over the Land.
Locus standi or standing to sue is the legal right of a party to an action to be heard in litigation before a court of law or tribunal. A person is said to have locus standi if he has shown sufficient interest in the action and that his civil rights and obligations have been or are in danger of being infringed.
[OLAGUNJU V. YAHAYA (1998) 3 NWLR (PT.542) 501, OKAFOR V ASOH (1999) 3 NWLR (PT. 593) 35, NNUBIA v. A.G. RIVERS STATE (1999) 3 NWLR (PT.593) 82, OGUNMOKUN v MIL ADM.OSUN STATE (1999) 3 NWLR (PT.594) 261, IBRAHIM V. INEC (1999) 8 NWLR (614) 334 and GUDA V KITTA (1999) 12 NWLR (PT.629) 21.

I have carefully studied the facts and circumstances of the instant case. It is a well established principle of law that a defendant who challenges in limine the locus standi of a plaintiff is deemed to accept as correct all the averments contained in the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim. [ADESOKA V ADEGOROTU (1997)3 NWLR (PT.493) 261.

A careful study of the 24 paragraphs statement of claim of the Respondent found at pages 9 (a) to 9 (d) of the record shows undoubtedly that the Respondent as Plaintiff showcased his unimpeachable interest on the Land in dispute. I entirely agree with the well reasoned decision of the learned trial judge that the later revocation of the said land by the Anambra State Government, well after the action has been initiated in the High Court of Justice, does not affect the cause of action in the instant suit which is trespass by the Appellants to the property purported to have been revoked.
In this appeal, I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent that the letter of revocation of the Respondent’s property dated 19/7/2005 was made pursuant to the pending action of the Respondent against the Appellants.
In the light of the foregoing analysis, I hold that the Appellants accepted as correct the whole averments contained in the Respondent’s Statement of Claim. See ADESOKAN V. ADEGOROTU (supra). The said Appellants as a matter of fact have failed woefully in their contention that the Respondent lacks the locus standi to institute and maintain the action against them. The issue of revocation heavily relied upon by the Appellants does not hold water.
On the whole, I find no substance in the affidavit in support of the Appellants’ Motion on Notice dated 10th March, 2006 and filed on the same date seeking to strike out Suit No. 0/55/2005: Beatitudes (Nigeria) Ltd Vs Mr. Eugene Obi Okoye and Another.
This Appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed. The Ruling of Hon. Justice J. C. Nwadi delivered on 23/5/2006 on the subject matter aforementioned is hereby upheld. The Appellants’ Motion dated and filed on 10/3/2006 is hereby dismissed.
Cost of N50,000.00 is awarded to the Respondent against the Appellant.

ADZIRA GANA MSHELIA, J.C.A.: I have read in advance the judgment of my learned brother Abubakar Jega Abdulkadir, JCA just delivered. I agree with his reasoning and conclusion arrived thereat. I too dismiss the appeal and abide by the other consequential orders contained in the lead judgment, inclusive of cost.

IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE, J.C.A.: I agree.

Appearances

Mr. J. R. Nduka with Miss C.B. NdukaFor Appellant

AND

Mr. E.C. EzemalariFor Respondent