BENSON OKECHUKWU NNOLI & ANOR. V. EMMANUEL CHUKA NNOLI & ANOR. (2013)

BENSON OKECHUKWU NNOLI & ANOR. V. EMMANUEL CHUKA NNOLI & ANOR.

(2013)LCN/5870(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Friday, the 25th day of January, 2013

CA/OW/324/2011

RATIO

LOCUS STANDI: DEFINITION
Now, the term locus standi denotes the legal capacity imbued on a party to enable him institute a legal proceeding in a Court of Law. It also means the standing or title of the party to sue. It may also mean the right which a party has to appear and be heard on a question placed before a Court or Tribunal in a dispute between such a party and another, which calls for determination by the court.

LOCUS STANDI: THE FUNDAMENTAL ASPECT OF LOCUS STANDI

LOCUS STANDI: HOW THE COURT CAN DETERMINE THE LOCUS STANDI OF A PLAINTIFF IN A SUIT

To determine the locus standi of a Plaintiff in a particular case, it is the Statement of Claim that the Court will resort to. The Court is therefore expected to meticulously peruse or examine the statement of claim to see if it discloses the locus standi of the Plaintiff. It is the reliefs claimed by the Plaintiff in the Statement of Claim that will reveal whether or not the Plaintiff has disclosed his locus standi or legal rights and obligations that entitle him to institute the action. See AROWOLO v OLOWOOKERE (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) p.280; ADEKUNLE v ADELUGBA (2011) 16 NWLR (Pt 1272) p.154; ADETONA v ZENITH INT’L BANK PLC (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. t2Z9) p.627, ANOZA v. A.G. LAGOS STATE (supra) at p.238 paras. F-G; and WILSON v OKEKE (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1235) p.562. Accordingly, the claim of the Plaintiff must disclose.
(a) a legal or justiciable right;
(b) sufficient or special interest adversely affected;
(c) a justiciable cause of action. PER HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, J.C.A.

LOCUS STANDI: IF A PLAINTIFF LACKS LOCUS STANDI, THE COURT WILL LACK JURISDICTION

APPEAL: ANY FINDING OF FACTS BY A TRIAL COURT TO WHICH THERE IS NO APPEAL REMAINS VALID AND SUBSISTING
It is the law that any finding of facts made by a trial Court for which there is no appeal remain valid and subsisting. In other words, where a trial Court makes crucial findings of facts on an issue before it and upon which the judgment of the court is made, and such findings are not appealed against or challenged on appeal, such findings remain valid and subsisting. Such findings of fact made by the trial Court and in which there is no appeal, are deemed admitted by the Appellant or the party against whom they were made, and the Appellate Court will be right to act on it. See EBENIGHE v ACHI (2011) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1230) p.65; AMOSHIMA v STATE (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1268) p.530; L.H.A.B.U.M.B v ANYIP (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1260) p.1; C.P.C v I.N.E.C. (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt 1279) p.493 and S.P.D.C.N LTD v EJEBU (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt 1276) p.324.PER HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, J.C.A.

JUSTICES

MOJEED A. OWOADE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

TIJJANI ABUBAKAR Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

1. BENSON OKECHUKWU NNOLI
2. OLUCHI NNOLI Appellant(s)

AND

1. EMMANUEL CHUKA NNOLI
2. AGNESS NWIGBO NNOLI Respondent(s)

HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the judgment of the Abia state High Court; Coram L. Abai, J sitting at Aba Judicial Division delivered on the 24th day of June, 2011.
The case of the Respondents who were the claimants at the Lower court is that, the 2nd Respondent is the widow of Late Felix Nwafor Nnoli of Mbanagu, Otolo, Newi in Nnewi North Local Government Area of Anambra State whom he married in 1950 under a Statutory Marriage. That the 2nd Respondent was the only wife of the said Felix Nnoli during his life time and the marriage was blessed with eight children consisting of six males and two Females. The 1st Claimant/Respondent is the first child of the marriage while the 1st Defendant/Appellant is the fourth in the hierarchy of the male children. It is also the case of the Respondents that after the marriage of the 2nd Respondent and her husband (Mr Felix Nwafor Nnoli), the couple were able to build the property in dispute known as No. 18 Azikiwe Road, Aba in 1966, wherein they co-habited till the demise of the said Felix Nwafor Nnoli on the 6th day of January, 1999. That after the death of her husband, the 2nd Claimant/Respondent continued to reside in the front upstairs space of the said building comprising of two bedrooms and a family living or sitting room as well as a private kitchen and a bath room.
The Claimants/Respondents further contended that in October, 2005 the 1st Defendant/Appellant was deported from Canada and the United States of America (U.S.A) where he had sojourned for a period of 25 years, whereof the 2nd Respondent accommodated him by allowing him to live in her late husband’s room temporarily as it was not her intention to make such accommodation permanent and that she made it so known to the 1st Defendant/Appellant. That in the process, a one room apartment was made available to the said Appellant in the said No. 18 Azikiwe Road, Aba, but he chose not to move in, and preferred to remain in the two bedrooms apartment occupied by the 2nd Respondent. The 1st Appellant and the 2nd Respondent then continued to live in the said two bedrooms apartment till the year 2006, when the 2nd Respondent travelled to the United States of America for medical treatment on the invitation of the 1st Respondent leaving the 1st Appellant in the said property. That while the 2nd Respondent was in the United States of America (U.S.A) the 1st Appellant telephoned her seeking for financial assistance to enable him marry his then girl friend (2nd Defendant/Appellant), and that with the financial assistance of the 1st Respondent, the 1st Appellant was able to actualize the marriage.
It is also the case of the Claimants/Respondents that early in the year, 2008, the 1st Appellant began a gradual process of dispossessing the 2nd Respondent by selling her personal effects and one of the beds in her room. That the 2nd Respondent returned to Nigeria earlier in 2008, but the 1st Appellant continued with his attitude of disrespect, malice and wickedness towards her when he removed the entire furniture in the living room and dumped same at the back of the building. After that, he systematically removed all the personal effects of the 2nd Respondent from the two bedroom apartment in dispute and that when confronted, the 1st Appellant told her that he is now the owner of the said two bedroom apartment, and proceeded to ask her to move out of the apartment. That when the 2nd Respondent returned to the U.S.A in 2009 for medical check-up, the 1st Appellant then finally removed her trunk box in which she keeps her clothes, jewelries and other important family documents and dumped them under the staircase of the building the subject of this suit. Consequently, the Respondents instructed their Solicitor to direct the Appellants to vacate the said apartment, but the Appellants wrote through their Solicitor stating that they had no intention of vacating the said apartment. The Respondents who contended that all they want is the place for the 2nd Respondent who was then eighty (80) years of age, to lay her weary body in peace therefore claimed before the Lower Court as follows:
“(a) A declaration that the 2nd Claimant being the wife and widow of late Felix Nwafor Nnoli who died intestate on the 6th day of February 1999 is entitled to remain in occupation of the living quarters or apartment at Felix Nwafor Nnoli family property otherwise known as No. 18 Azikiwe Road, Aba which she shared with her late husband until his demise to the exclusion of other members of the said family.
(b) A declaration that the 2nd Claimant is entitled to exclusive possession of the said living apartment without interruption and/or interference from the Defendants, their agents, servants or any other member of late Felix Nwafor Nnoli family.
(c) An order of Court compelling the Defendants to VACATE FORTHWITH the said living apartment comprising of a living room, two bedrooms, a private kitchen and bath room belonging to the 2nd Claimant which the Defendants presently occupy without the consent of the 2nd Claimant.
(d) An order of the Honourable Court directing the Defendants to return to the 2nd Claimant all her personal properties which they removed from the said living room apartment of the 2nd Claimant at No. 18 Azikiwe Road, Aba.
(e) An order of injunction restraining the Defendants, their servants or agents from intimidating, harassing or threatening the life of the 2nd Claimants in any manner howsoever.”
The case of the Appellants, who were Defendants at the Court below is that the property in dispute was single handedly built by the late Felix Nwafor Nnoli, and that the 2nd Respondent, though a wife to the said Mr Nnoli, did not contribute anything financially toward the building of the said property. The Appellants then contended that, the 2nd Claimant/Respondent never lived in the said apartment with her husband, the late Felix Nwafor Nnoli, but had her private room at the back of the building and could only go into the apartment in dispute on the invitation of her husband. That after the death of Mr. Nnoli, the two bedroom apartment was locked – up and was only opened by the 1st Appellant upon his return from the United States of America, who cleaned and refurbished same and occupied it without any disturbance or interference from the 2nd Respondent or any other person. It is also the Defendants/Appellants’ case that, at the time the action was instituted, the Respondents had not applied for nor obtained any letters of administration so as to enable them administer the estate of the late Felix Nwafor Nnoli, but had been intermeddling with the said estate.
It is also the case of the Appellants that, the 2nd Respondent kept her personal effects in her private room when she travelled to the U.S.A and that when she returned to Nigeria in 2008, her properties were still in her said private room. That it was when she went back to the U.S.A in 2009 that she evacuated some of her properties to the house of her daughter, Mrs Joy Anazodo who lives near St. Philip’s Anglican Church, Aba. That she (2nd Appellant) handed over two locked-up trunk boxes to the 1st Appellant through the 2nd Appellant for safe keeping, which he kept under his bed, while she left with the keys. The Appellants denied selling any of the 2nd Respondent’s properties and contended that it was the 2nd Respondent who kept her iron bed and furniture under the staircase, and which bed and furniture were later refurbished by her and given to one Mrs Ulorka Nnoli, the wife of Mr. Dennis Nnoli. The 1st Appellant then denied ever tampering with any property belonging to the 2nd Respondent. The Appellants then contended that the Respondents had no competence to ask them to vacate the said apartment.
At the trial, the 1st and 2nd Respondents testified and tendered two exhibits which were admitted in evidence as Exhibits “A” and “B” respectively. The 1st Appellant also testified for the defence as the D.W.1. The Parties then filed and exchanged Written Addresses which were adopted in Court. In a considered judgment delivered on the 24th day of June, 2011 the Court below entered judgment for the Respondents and granted all the reliefs claimed by the Respondents, save for the 5th prayer i.e prayer (e). The Appellants who were Defendants at the lower Court are aggrieved by the said judgment and have now filed this appeal.
The Notice of Appeal which was dated the 07/07/2011 and filed the 13/07/2011 consists of three (3) Grounds of Appeal. They are hereunder reproduced as follows:
1. GROUND 1: ERROR IN LAW:
The Learned trial Judge erred Law when he held that the Respondents have locus standi to institute the action in Court with a view to ejecting the Appellants from their two bedroom apartment.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR:
(a) The property otherwise known as and called No. 18 Azikiwe Road wherein the Appellants resided is the bonafide property of late Felix Nnoli who died intestate in 1999.
(b) The said Felix Nnoli had statutory marriage with the 2nd Respondent as per Exhibit “D” which shows that it is the English law that will apply to his estate.
(c) Respondents admitted under cross-examination that, they have no letters of Administration to institute this case to ask for possession from the Appellants.
(d) The Court applied Customary Law to justify his position that a member of a family has capacity to sue to protect his interest thereby holding the view that the Respondents have locus standi to file his case to ask for possession.
(e) Ordinary interest the Respondents have in the absence of letters of administration will not give them locus standi to sue with regard to the estate.
2. The Learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that the Respondents should recover possession of the apartment from the Appellants.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR:
(a) It is in evidence that the Parties in this case are the sons and wife of late Felix Nnoli respectively and therefore beneficiaries of the estate.
(b) It is also in evidence of both parties that they have equal interest in the property.
(c) The Respondents have no title or better title than the Appellants with regard to the estate of Felix Nnoli.
(d) There is no evidence that the rooms in the said property have been shared among all the beneficiaries of the estate of late Felix Nnoli to confer ownership on individual beneficiaries.
3. The Learned trial Judge erred in Law in making order of recovery of possession of the two bed room apartment in favour of the Respondents inspite of having made a finding that the recovery of premises law does not apply in the instant case.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR:
(a) The Appellants are not tenants in the said property.
(b) The Appellants are co-owners of the property with the Respondents.
(c) The Respondents have no better title than the Appellants.
As required by the Rules of this Court, parties filed and exchanged Briefs of Arguments. The Appellants’ Brief of Arguments which is undated was filed on the 11/04/2012. Therein, the Appellant formulated three (3) issues for determination as follows:
1. Whether the Respondents have locus standi to institute the case at the Court below having blatantly admitted under cross-examination that they have no letters of Administration.
2. Whether in the circumstances of this case, the Learned trial Judge was right in making an order for possession against the Appellants when the property belongs to the parties and rooms therein have not been shared among them to confer ownership on individual beneficiaries.
3. Whether the Learned trial Judge was right in making order (sic) for recovery of possession against the Appellants having held that the recovery of premises law does not apply to this case.
The Respondents’ Brief of arguments was dated the 4th day of June, 2012 and filed the 6th day of June, 2012. At page 4 of the said Brief of arguments, apart from adopting the three issues formulated by the Appellants, proceeded to nominate one additional issue for determination, and which issue is:-
“From a Community reading of the totality of the Respondents’ claims and Relief, were the said relief (and claims) based on Landlord – tenant relationship or merely directed to regaining the matrimonial apartment of the 2nd Respondent and her valuable personal items of property wrongly taken over by the appellants.”
Though the Respondents purport to and did formulate an issue for determination, it would be seen that the said issue and the arguments therein, can be adequately subsumed by issue three (3) formulated by the Appellants. That being so, I shall determine this appeal on the three issues nominated by the Appellants. I begin with issue one (1).
On issue 1, it is the contention of Learned Counsel for the Appellants that; the marriage certificate of the 2nd Respondent with the late Felix Nwafor Nnoli was tendered in evidence as Exhibit “D” to show that the said marriage was statutory.. That Exhibit “C” was also tendered by the Appellants to show that the property in dispute known as No.18 Azikiwe Road, Aba, belonged to the late Felix Nnoli who died intestate. That both Respondents admitted that they have no letters of Administration in respect of the estate of late Felix Nwafor Nnoli. lt was then submitted that it was imperative that the Respondents have letters of Administration in respect of the estate of late Felix Nwafor Nnoli who died intestate in order to cloth them with the locus standi to institute this action. That the admission of the Respondents that they have no letters of Administration robs them of locus standi and consequently, the Court below had no jurisdiction to have entertained this case. The cases of IDACHABA v ILONA (2007) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1030) p.277 at 281 was cited in support. That the Learned trial Judge was wrong to have relied on the case of MOZIE v MBAMALU (2006) ALL F.W.L.R (Pt.341) p.120 in coming to the conclusion that the Respondents as members of the family can sue to protect their interest in the family property because, Customary Law does not apply to the instant case, and that the marriage certificate (Exhibit “D”) between late Felix Nnoli and the 2nd Respondent puts paid to the applicability of Customary Law to this case. The cases of OLOWU v OLOWU (1985) 3 NWLR (Pt. 13) p.372 at 374 and AGBOLU v AGBOLU (1995) 1 NWLR (Pt. 372) p.411 were then cited to submit that, once a marriage is statutory, it is the English Law that will apply to govern the estate. We were then urged to resolve this issue in favour of the Appellants. Learned Counsel for the Respondents contended that to properly appreciate the issue, the reliefs claimed by the Respondents should be looked into. That if the claims of the Respondents as stated in paragraph 43 of the Statement of Claim are looked into, it would be clearly seen that the Respondents did not bring the action as Administrators of the Estate of late Felix Nwafor Nnoli so as to require them to have letters of Administration. That it was a personal action brought by the 2nd Respondent to reclaim her personal right of occupation and residence over the matrimonial home she shared with her deceased husband at No. 18, Azikiwe Road, Aba, and for recovery of her personal items wrongfully taken away from her by the Respondents.
While conceding that a person has no locus standi and therefore lacks competence to bring an action in a representative capacity as an Administrator of a deceased person’s estate until he has been granted a
Letter of Administration, as stated in the case of MALLAM v MAIRIGA (1991) 5 NWLR (Pt. 189) p. 114 at 127, he submitted that the present action was neither commenced by the Respondents in a representative capacity or as Administrators of the Estate of the late Felix Nwafor Nnoli. Learned Counsel then submitted that, the learned trial Judge was therefore perfectly right in his findings at page 143 lines 3-18 of the record of appeal. We were then urged to uphold that finding of the Learned trial Judge and to resolve this issue against the Appellants.
Now, the term locus standi denotes the legal capacity imbued on a party to enable him institute a legal proceeding in a Court of Law. It also means the standing or title of the party to sue. It may also mean the right which a party has to appear and be heard on a question placed before a Court or Tribunal in a dispute between such a party and another, which calls for determination by the court.

The fundamental aspect of locus standi is that it focuses on the party seeking to be heard on his complaint before the trial court. Accordingly, a Plaintiff or Claimant cannot have locus standi in a matter, unless he is able to show that he has interest or that he has sufficient or special interest in the performance of the duty which he seeks the Court to enforce, or that his interest has been adversely affected. See SHIKBAU v A.G. ZAMFARA STATE (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1202) p.312; NYAME v F.R.N (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1193) p.344; ANOZIA v AG; LAGOS STATE (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1216) p.207.
A person is said to have an interest in a thing when he has rights, advantages, duties, liabilities, loses, et al, connected with the thing, whether present or future, ascertained or potential, provided that in the case of rights and duties, the possibility is not too remote. The burden or duty is on the Plaintiff to show that he has the necessary locus standi. Such a Plaintiff has to disclose his special interest or the actual threat or injury that he has suffered or will suffer from the infringement or act of the Defendant complained of. In other words, he must show that his civil rights and obligations have been or are in danger of being infringed upon, and that he has sufficient legal interest in seeking redress in a Court of Law.

It is therefore the law that if a Plaintiff has no locus standi to institute the action, the court will not have the jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Locus standi is therefore a sine qua non to the exercise of jurisdiction because the constitutional powers of the court to adjudicate a dispute is limited to cases in which the parties have locus standi. The locus standi of b Plaintiff is in that respect, a condition precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the Court. Thus, before a Court can proceed to hear and determine on a particular matter, the Plaintiff must disclose his locus standi to have initiated or instituted the action. See CHIJUKA v MADUEWESI (2011) 16 NWLR (Pt.1272) p.In the instant case, the reliefs sought by the Respondents are as stated in paragraph 43 of the Statement of Claim. For better understanding I endeavour to reproduce same below:
“43 Whereof the Claimants claim against the Defendants as follows:
(a) A declaration that the 2nd Claimant being the wife and widow of late Felix Nwafor Nnoliwho died intestate on the 6th day of January, 1999 is entitled to remain in occupation of the living quarters or apartment at Felix Nwafor Nnoli family property otherwise known as No. 18 Azikiwe Road, Aba which she shared with her late husband until his demise to the exclusion of other members of the said family.
(b) A declaration that the 2nd Claimant is entitled to exclusive possession of the said living apartment without interruption and/or interference from the Defendants, their agents, servants or any other member of late Felix Nwafor Nnoli family.
(c) An order of Court compelling the Defendants to vacate FORTHWITH the said living apartment comprising of living room, two bedrooms, a private kitchen, and bathroom belonging to the 2nd Claimant which the Defendants presently occupy without the consent of the 2nd Claimant.
(d) An order of the Honourable Court directing the Defendants to return to the 2nd Claimant all her personal properties which they removed from the said living apartment of the 2nd Claimant at No.18 Azikiwe Road, Aba.
(e) An order of injunction restraining the Defendants, their servants or agents from intimidating, harassing or threatening the life of the 2nd Claimant in any manner howsoever.”
To properly understand the reliefs claimed by the Appellants as stated above, there are other paragraphs of the Statement of Claim which I also find germaine to the determination of this issue. Those paragraphs are 4, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 40 and 41 of the Statement of Claim. Therein, it was pleaded as follows:
“4. The 2nd Claimant who is a widow and ordinarily resides at No. 18 Azikiwe Road, Aba is presently receiving medical treatment in the United States of America.
9. Until his death, late Felix Nwafor Nnoli and the 2nd Claimant lived in their building situate at and otherwise known as No. 18 Azikiwe Road, Aba in Aba South Local Government Area of Abia State of Nigeria.
10. The property otherwise known as No. 18 Azikiwe Road, is a storey building and was completed in June, 1966 out of the sweat and endeavours of the 2nd Claimant and her late husband, Felix Nwafor Nnoli.
12. During his life time, Felix Nwafor Nnoli (now deceased) and 2nd Claimant occupied the front upstairs space of the said building facing Azikiwe Road, Aba and comprising of two bedrooms and the family living (sitting) room as well as a private kitchen and a bathroom.
13. After the death of her husband, the 2nd Claimant continued to occupy the living quarters or apartment referred to in paragraph 12 above.
14. The 1st Claimant is, by virtue of his position as the 1st son, the Head of the family of the said late Felix Nwafor Nnoli.
16. It is also the duty of the 1st Claimant as the Head of the family to ensure that members of the family of his deceased father live in peace and harmony
18. Consequently, the 2nd Claimant accommodated the 1st Defendant in her late husband’s bedroom next to hers, fed and clothed him because the 1st Defendant returned to Nigeria in a pitiable state with only the clothes on his body.
19. When the 2nd Claimant accommodated the 1st Defendant, it was not her intention to make the accommodation permanent and she firmly told the 1st Defendant so in the presence of other family members.
40. The 2nd Claimant is 80 years old and in poor health in peace without intimidation or harassment by the Defendants.”
41. The 2nd Claimant simply needs a place to lay her weary body in peace without intimidation or harassment by the Defendants.”
The summary of the Appellants’ Claim therefore is that, the 2nd Claimant is the widow of late Felix Nwafor Nnoli who died intestate in 1999. That before the demise of the said Felix Nwafor Nnoli, the couple resided at No.18 Azikiwe Road, Aba as husband and wife of a statutory marriage and that after the dbmise of the said Mr. Nnoli the 2nd Respondent continued to live or reside in the said apartment as the widow of the said Mr. Nnoli. That the 1st Respondent who is the 1st son of the marriage became the head of the family upon the death of their father, Felix Nwafor Nnoli, and therefore had the responsibility of keeping the family together. That the peace of the family was disrupted when the 1st Appellant who was on sojourn in the United States of America and Canada returned home, having been deported due to his criminal activities in those two foreign countries. It is also the claim of the Respondents that the 1st Appellant who was accommodated by his mother (2nd Respondent) in her matrimonial home, brazenly dispossessed her of residence in her matrimonial apartment. The 2nd Claimant who is 80 years old pleaded that all she needs is to be restored into possession of her home where she can lay her weary body in peace. Those state of the facts therefore merely claim that the 2nd Respondent be restored into possession of the two bedroom apartment situate at No. 18 Azikiwe Road, Aba wherein she resided with her husband before his demise. Those facts do not presuppose, by any stretch of reasoning, that the Respondents claim ownership of the property in dispute. The Learned trial Judge properly situated the Respondents’ claims before him when he held at page 142 lines 12-24 as follows:
“…This action was brought to protect the interest and right of the 2nd Claimant as widow of the deceased Felix Nwafor Nnoli to reside in the said apartment situate at No. 18 Azikiwe, Road, Aba. It is not in dispute that the late Felix Nwafor Nnoli owned the property situate at No. 18 Azikiwe Road, Aba, that the family resided in the property prior to his death, that the 2nd Claimant and deceased were married under the Marriage Act. (See Exhibit B) or that the deceased died intestate. It is not in issue that the Claimants do not have letters of administration. A consideration of the pleadings and evidence show that the Claimants are not suing as administrators of the estate of the late Felix Nwafor Nnoli nor are they seeking to interfere with the estate of the deceased by alienating it. They seek to protect the right of the 2nd claimant to reside therein in the apartment the subject matter of this suit, which right existed at the time of her husband’s death.”
The Learned trial Judge then concluded at page 143 lines 12 – 16 of the record of appeal that:
“Those reliefs do not indicate that the Claimants are seeking to administer the estate, or show the Claimants are seeking the ownership of the apartment in question. They merely show that the 2nd Claimant has an interest which she seeks to protect, the reliefs sought also show that the 2nd Claimant seeks a return of her property allegedly removed by the defendants from the said apartment.”
It was therefore the view of the learned trial Judge that the Claimant/Respondents have the locus standi to sue. The above findings and conclusion arrived at by the Learned trial Judge cannot be faulted. It is an accurate and correct appraisal of the Respondents claim which clothed them with the requisite locus standi to institute the action. The claim is miles apartment from the contention of the Appellants as it has nothing to do with the administration of the estate of late Felix Nwafor Nnoli. The Learned trial Judge was therefore right when he held that the Respondents had the locus standi to sue. This issue is therefore resolved against the Appellants.
On the 2nd issue formulated by the Appellants, it was the contention of learned counsel for the Appellants that, the 1st Appellant stated in paragraph 8 of his statement of defence that the apartment was locked up after the demise of Felix Nnoli, and he, opened, cleared and refurbished same before taking possession as a co-beneficiary, while the 2nd Respondent stated that she accommodated the said 1st Appellant and in her absence, the 1st Appellant took over the entire apartment. That it is in evidence that the parties are the wife and sons of late Felix Nnoli who died intestate, and therefore the property belong to them all as beneficiaries to the estate of late Felix Nnoli. He then submitted that, it is only upon the rooms in the property being shared among the beneficiaries that each of them will lay claim to his or her share and therefore the Respondents cannot bring an action asking the Court to wrest possession of the two bedroom apartment from the Appellants. The case of OJIBAH v OJIBAH (1991) 5 NWLR (Pt 191) p.296 at 303 was referred to.
It was also submitted by learned counsel for the Appellants that the learned trial Judge was therefore wrong in making the order for possession against the Appellants. That the Learned trial Judge having found that there was no evidence to prove that the house situate at No. 18 Azikiwe Road, Aba was built by the 2nd claimant and late Felix Nwafor Nnoli, and that the 1st Appellant also has the right to reside in this property, should not have ordered the Appellants to vacate, especially when there is evidence that there is no vacant room in that premises.
Learned counsel for the Respondents, submitted that, it is trite law that any findings of trial court not appealed against stands against the Appellant and that an appellate court has no jurisdiction to upturn or question any findings of facts made by a trial court not appealed against. That it is trite law that the issue of credibility of a witness is solely within the province of a trial Court which saw and heard the witnesses testify, and thus, it is not the duty of an appellate Court to reverse the findings of fact of a trial Court unless they are shown to be perverse or unjustified. The cased of ODOFIN v AYOOLA (1984) 11 S.C. p.72 was referred to. He then referred to the findings of the trial Court at page 144 line 22-145 line 6 of the record of appeal to further submit that those fundamental findings of facts have not been appealed against, and therefore valid and subsisting against the Appellants. Learned Counsel proceeded to itemize the crucial findings of the Learned trial Judge as follows:
(i) 2nd Respondent was a lawful wife/widow of the deceased Felix Nwafor Nnoli.
(ii) 2nd Respondent occupied with her husband the one living room, two bedrooms, a private kitchen and bath room situate at 18 Azikiwe Road, Aba up till the time of his death.
(iii) 2nd Respondent duly married under the Marriage Act has no legal inhibitions and encumbrances in continuing in that part of the estate she was living with her husband before his death
(iii) Appellants wrongfully evicted 2nd Respondent from her living apartment which she maintained by leaving her belongings therein in spite of her frequent travels to the United States.
That the above findings not having been appealed against, the issue of unpartitioned and/or joint ownership by the parties to this matter pales into insignificance and only of academic value. We were then urged to also resolve this issue against the Appellants.
It is the law that any finding of facts made by a trial Court for which there is no appeal remain valid and subsisting. In other words, where a trial Court makes crucial findings of facts on an issue before it and upon which the judgment of the court is made, and such findings are not appealed against or challenged on appeal, such findings remain valid and subsisting. Such findings of fact made by the trial Court and in which there is no appeal, are deemed admitted by the Appellant or the party against whom they were made, and the Appellate Court will be right to act on it. See EBENIGHE v ACHI (2011) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1230) p.65; AMOSHIMA v STATE (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1268) p.530; L.H.A.B.U.M.B v ANYIP (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1260) p.1; C.P.C v I.N.E.C. (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt 1279) p.493 and S.P.D.C.N LTD v EJEBU (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt 1276) p.324.In the instant case, I had found under issue one above that the claim of the Respondents at the Court below was not on the ownership of the property in dispute. In other words the Respondent never claimed title to the property which was shown to be a part of the estate of late Felix Nwafor Nnoli, nor did they seek to be adjudged the administrators of the said estate. The Respondents only sought that the Respondents be restored into possession and occupation of the two bedroom apartment which she resided with her husband who she wedded under the Marriage Act, before his death and in which she continued to lawfully reside before she was forced out by the 1st Appellant and his wife (2nd Appellant). Thus, based upon the evidence before him, the learned trial Judge made some crucial findings, at pages 144 line 22- 144 line 6 – of the record of appeal. It would be helpful if those findings are reproduced here. The Learned trial Judge found that:
“l believe the evidence of the Claimants which is most probable and find as a fact that during his life time and after the death of Felix Nwafor Nnoli the 2nd Claimant occupied the apartment in question. I also believe that upon the return of the 1st Defendant in 2005, she gave him a room in the apartment to reside in and that based on the fact that the 2nd Claimant variously travelled to the United States for whatever reason he decided to take over full occupation of the apartment in her absence. There is no credible evidence to prove that the 2nd Claimant occupied a room at the back of the premises situate at No. 18 Azikiwe Road, Aba, nor is there evidence to show that the 2nd Claimant abandoned the premises where she lived with her husband to live permanently in the United States. It is her uncontroverted evidence that she travelled in 2006 and returned in 2008, then travelled in 2009 and returned in 2011. It is also her evidence which I believe that her property was kept in the said apartment.”
The above findings of the trial Court are borne out of the evidence before him. The Learned trial Judge had the advantage of seeing, hearing and observing the parties when testifying before him. He believed the testimony of the Respondents and disbelieved the Appellants. The Appellant did not deem it necessary to appeal against those crucial findings of facts made by the trial Court. They are therefore bound by those findings and accordingly estopped from asserting the contrary of those findings of the trial Court.
Interestingly the arguments of the Appellants on this issue is centred on the rights of the beneficiaries of the estate of late Felix Nwafor Nnoli. That is not the issue in the claim of the Respondents. Certainly, the issue of ownership of the properties in the estate of late Felix Nnoli did not call for determination in the claim of the Respondents as the Respondents’ claim was limited to the right of the 2nd Respondent to continue to possess and occupy the matrimonial apartment she shared with her husband before his death. Accordingly, I agree with Learned Counsel for the Respondents that the introduction of the ownership of the estate of late Felix Nwafor Nnoli or the sharing of same is irrelevant to the claims of the Respondents. The Learned trial Judge was right, in my view, when he found in favour of the Respondents. This issue is therefore resolved also in favour of the Respondents and against the Appellants.
On the third issue, Learned Appellants’ Counsel contended that since the Recovery of Premises Law does not apply to this case as the Appellants are not tenants but owners of the property, the court below lacked the jurisdiction to make the order for recovery of possession against them. That since they are not tenants as rightly admitted by the Respondents, they have a right to live in the property in dispute and can only be evicted by somebody with a better title. It was then submitted that the 2nd Respondent has no better title than the Appellants. The case of EDIO EKRETSU v MILLER OYOBEBERE (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 266) P.438 at 441 was cited in support.
Learned Counsel for the Respondents referred to the Judgment of the trial Court at pages 143 line 21-144 line 9 and 146 lines 9 – 16 on the issue. That here again those findings of the Court below have not been appealed against and therefore subsist. That the Learned trial Judge was right to hold as he did and therefore this issue should be resolved in favour of the Respondents
Upon a careful perusal of the record of appeal, and specifically the judgment of the trial Court, I am of the view that the relevant part of the Judgment of germaine or relevant to this issue is at pages 143 – 144. Therein the Learned trial Judge made specific findings that the Rent Control and Recovery of Premises Law, 1994 applicable in Abia State does not apply as the Respondents were not seeking to eject the Appellants from the premises consequent upon any tenancy agreement between them. That in any case, the 1st Appellant is not a tenant to the 1st Respondent but equally a beneficiary of the estate of late Felix Nwafor Nnoli. The Learned trial judge then found at page 146 lines 9-16 as follows:
“The 1st Defendant no doubt has a right to reside in the property situate at No. 18 Azikiwe Road, Aba, but during the life time of the 2nd Claimant, it is my view and I so hold that she is entitled to reside unmolested in the apartment she occupied with her late husband. The 2nd Claimant just seeks the right to occupy the said apartment without interference from the Defendants, their agents, servants or any other member of the family of late Felix Nwafor Nnoli which relief I am satisfied she is entitled to.”
It would be seen that the Learned trial Judge after agreeing that from the evidence and circumstances of the case, the 1s Appellant as a beneficiary of the estate of the late Felix Nwafor Nnoli has a right to reside in the property situate at No. 18 Azikiwe Road, Aba. It should be noted that the 1st Appellant is one of the several sons of the late Felix Nnoli, while the 2nd Respondent is the only surviving wife of late Felix Nnoli. The evidence also shows that the late Felix Nnoli died intestate. In that respect it is proper to conclude that so long as the estate of the deceased husband had not been distributed, as between the 1st Appellant and the 2nd Respondent, the 2nd Respondent has priority over the 1st Appellant and indeed resided in with her husband before his death, and which she continued to occupy before she was unlawful forced out by the Appellants. The ownership or title to the land at that stage does not arise, as the occupation of the premises in dispute will enure in favour of the 2nd Respondent as the widow of the late Felix Nwafor Nnoli through a statutory marriage. Having been unlawfully removed from occupation of the said apartment by her son, who sadly is the 1s Appellant in this case, she is entitled to be restored to peaceful possession and occupation. This the trial Court did and I find no reason to interfere. Accordingly I hereby again resolve this issue against the Appellants and in favour of the Respondents.
Having resolved all the three issues against the Appellants it is obvious that this appeal is totally devoid of any merit. It is accordingly dismissed. The judgment of the Court below delivered on the 24/06/2011 in Suit No. A/176/2010 is hereby affirmed.
In the interest of peace and harmony in the family, I make no order as to costs.

MOJEED A. OWOADE, J.C.A: I draft the privilege of reading in draft the Judgment of my learned brother HARUNA S. TSAMMANI, JCA. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion and I abide with the consequential orders.

TIJJANI ABUBAKAR J.C.A: My learned brother H. S Tsammani, JCA gave me the advantage of reading in advance the judgment just delivered by him.
My learned brother adequately considered all the issues that arose for determination in this appeal. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion arrived thereat.
I also abide by the consequential orders made thereon.

Appearances

B.C. Nwaokoro; Esq holds the brief of E.V. Onuegbu; Esq.For Appellant

AND

B.S. Nwankwo; Esq.For Respondent