MAILILU NIGERIA LIMITED v. MAI ULU NIGERIA LIMITED
(2019)LCN/13252(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Tuesday, the 14th day of May, 2019
CA/A/553/14
RATIO
DECLARATORY RELIEF: A PLAINTIFF CLAIMING DECLARATORY RELIEF MUST ADDUCE CREDIBLE EVIDENCE
It is trite law that a plaintiff who seeks a declaratory relief must adduce credible evidence to establish his entitlement to the declaration; he must succeed on the strength of his case and not on the weakness, admission and/or absence of defence by the Defendant. See the case ofANYANRU VS. MANDILAS LTD (2007) 10 NWLR (PT. 1093) PG 462 AT 477 TO 478 PARAS H – A where the Supreme Court per Mohammed JSC stated thus:
“The requirement of the law regarding the onus placed on a party claiming a declaratory relief as claimed by the Appellant in the present case is trite. A claim for relief of declaration, whether of title to land or not, is not established by an admission by the Defendant, because the plaintiff must satisfy the Court by cogent and credible evidence called by him to prove that as a claimant, he is entitled to the declaratory relief. It is the law that a Court does not grant declaration on admission of parties because the Court must be satisfied the plaintiff on his own evidence is entitled to the relief claimed.”
See also AREWA ILES PLC VS. FINETEX LTD (2003) 7 NWLR (PT. 819) PG 322 AT 339 TO 340.PER MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.C.A.
COMPANY LAW: A COMPANY CAN ONLY ACT THROUGH ITS AGENTS
The Supreme Court was to later re-echo this principle in the case of ISHOLA VS. SOCIETE GENERALE BANK LIMITED (1997) 2 SCNJ 1, where it held that a company being a legal entity or a juristic person, can only act through its agents or servants; and that any agent or servant of such company can give evidence to establish any transaction entered into by the company. That where the official giving the evidence is not the one that actually took part in the transaction on behalf of the company, such evidence is nonetheless relevant and admissible, hence will not be rejected or discountenanced as hearsay. Finally, however, that the fact that an official had not personally participated in the transaction on which he has given evidence may in appropriate cases, affect the weight of such evidence. See also S. T. B. LTD VS.INTERDRILL NIG. LTD (2007) ALL FWLR (PT. 366) 756 CA.PER MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.C.A.
LAND LAW: DECLARATION OF TITLE: A PERSON CLAIMING TITLE MUST PROVE IT
Also, it is the well-established position of the law that any person claiming a declaration of title to land must prove by evidence that he is entitled to the declaration he seeks; Mbadinuju v. Ezuka (1994) 8 NWLR (Pt. 364) 535 S.C; Umesie v. Onuaguluchi (1995) 9 NWLR (PT. 421), (1995) LPELR-3368(SC); Kazeem v. Mosaku (2007) 2 S.C. 22; Olodo v. Josiah (2010) 18 NWLR (PT 1225) 653. In proving title, he must rely on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defence.PER MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.C.A.
RELIEFS: A COURT CANNOT GRANT A RELIEF NOT SOUGHT BY A PARTY
The law is trite, a Court of law has no jurisdiction to grant relief(s) or claim(s) not sought by litigant in a civil litigation. However, there is an exception to this general principle of law. A consequential order can be granted though not specifically sought for by a party in a civil case. See Abdulkarim v. Anazodo (2006) 11 NWLR (Pt. 991) 299 @ 319.PER MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.C.A.
A COURT CAN MAKE A CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER TO GIVE EFFECT TO ITS DECISION
A Court of law can, in appropriate circumstances make a consequential order to give effect to its decision. See the cases of Briggs v. CLORSN (2005) 12 NWLR (Pt. 938) P. 59 at 81 – 82; Amaechi v. INEC (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1080) 227 @ 345; FAAN v. Greenstone Ltd (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1150) 644.PER MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.C.A.
CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER: DEFINITION
A consequential order is not one merely incidental to a decision,but one necessarily flowing directly and naturally from the judgment. It is to give effect to the judgment or order. It must be one giving effect to the judgment or order which it flows. See Uba v. Etiala (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1202) P. 343 @ 409 – 4.PER MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
ABDU ABOKI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
PETER OLABISI IGE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
MAILILU NIG. LTD Appellant(s)
AND
MAI ULU NIG. LTD Respondent(s)
MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the final judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja delivered on the 17th April, 2014 by Honourable Justice M. M. Kolo in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/236/2011. The judgment is at pages 457 – 500 of the Record of Appeal. The Appellant dissatisfied with the said judgment appealed to this Court by filing a Notice of Appeal against the said judgment on the 17th day of June, 2014 containing 8 (eight) grounds of appeal. The Notice of Appeal is at pages 501 – 506 of the Record of Appeal.
The Appellant as plaintiff before the trial Court took out a writ of summons against: (1.) The Honourable Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja (2.) The Federal Capital Development Authority (3.) Marinzo Nigeria Limited (properties). See pages 1 – 21 of the Record of Appeal. However, pursuant to an application the names of the Honourable Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja and the Federal Capital Development Authority were stuck out by the order of the court made on the 29th February, 2012. See pages 71 and 72 of the
1
Record of Appeal for the said order. Similarly, by an application filed on the 21st March, 2012 (see pages 73 – 82 of the Record of Appeal) the Respondent herein sought to be joined as a party before the trial Court. By an order of the trial Court made on the 25th April, 2012 the Respondent was joined as the 2nd Defendant before the trial court. See pages 113 and 114 of the Record of Appeal for the said order.
Consequent upon the foregoing, by an amended writ of summons filed on the 24th January, 2014 the Appellant as plaintiff before the trial Court claimed against Marinzo Nigeria Limited (properties) and the Respondent herein who was the 2nd defendant at the trial Court as follows:
I. A DECLARATION that by virtue of the letter of allocation/offer dated 24th November, 2010, plot No. 96, Cadastral Zone C10 Wumba District, Abuja, Federal Capital Territory, measuring 79439.76 M2 was allocated to the Plaintiff by the Honourable Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.
II. A DECLARATION that the said plot 96 Cadastral Zone C10 Wumba District, measuring 79439.76 M2 was never allocated to any other person(s), except the Plaintiff
2
III. A DECLARATION that the 1st Defendant is neither a director nor a shareholder of the Plaintiff and that the 1st Defendant did not enter into any agreement whatsoever with the Plaintiff in respect of the plot 96 Cadastral Zone C10, Wumba Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.
IV. A DECLARATION that the posting of military men and personnel to, and the fixing of military tents on the Plaintiff’s said plot at the instance of the ft Defendant is unlawful.
V. A PERPETUAL INJUCTION restraining the Minister Federal Capital Territory, Abuja and the Federal Capital Development Authority from giving effects, or any backing or support to the Defendants or their servants, agents or privies, with regard to plot 96 Cadastral Zone C10, Wumba District, Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.
VI. A PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the Defendants, its servants, assigns, agents and privies from interfering, interrupting or preventing the plaintiff from exercising the rights conferred on her by the letter of offer dated 24/11/2010.
See pages 347 and 348 of the Record of Appeal for the Amended Statement of Claim.
?The Respondent herein filed its Amended Statement of
3
Defence/Counter Claim to the Appellant’s Amended Statement of Claim before the trial Court which can be found at pages 223 – 231 of the Record of Appeal. The Respondent in its Counter Claim sought for the following relief:
i. A declaration that the 2nd defendant is the rightful holder/owner of the Statutory Right of Occupancy via a Letter of Allocation in respect of Mass Housing Development Program within the Federal Capital Territory, issued by the Federal Capital Development Authority in respect of Plot No. 96, Cadastral Zone C10, Wumba District of the Federal Capital Territory Abuja measuring approximately 79439.76m2 and entitled to the exclusive possession having been duly allocated the said property by the Federal Capital Development Authority, Abuja.
ii. A declaration by this Honourable Court that the Plaintiff was never allocated plot No. 96, Cadastral Zone C10, Wumba District of the Federal Capital Territory Abuja measuring approximately 79439.76m2 by the Federal Capital Development Authority.
iii. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff, its agents privies and assigns or any one however named claiming from the
4
plaintiff or through it from interfering, interrupting or preventing the 2nd defendant from exercising its full proprietary rights over plot No. 96 Cadastral Zone C10, Wumba District, Federal Capital Territory, Abuja measuring approximately 79439.76m2 which was duly allocated to the 2nd defendant by the Federal Capital Development Authority.
In response to the Respondent’s Amended Statement of Defence/Counter Claim, the Appellant filed a Reply and Defence to Counter Claim which can be found at pages 236 – 250 of the Record of Appeal. It is instructive to mention that Marinzo Nigeria Ltd (Properties) did not defend the suit nor participated in the proceedings.
The facts of the case are simply that the Appellant was granted a plot of land by the Honourable Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja situate at Plot No. 96, Cadastral Zone C10, Wumba District, FCT – Abuja and measuring approximately 79,439.76sqm vide a Letter of Offer/Allocation dated 24th November, 2010. According to the Appellant, its promoters applied for the land in its name and the application was done before the Appellant was incorporated. That on grant of the
5
land, the Appellant took possession and thereafter leased it out to one Maclowe Properties Limited for a period of ten years to develop the land in accordance with terms and conditions contained in the said letter of Offer. Maclowe Properties Limited took possession of the property and commenced clearing the land when some Military men came onto the land and stopped Maclowe Properties Limited from entering the land, with the claim that the said land belongs to Morinzo Nigeria Limited (Properties) and the Military men were sent by the said Morinzo to stop the Appellant from entering the land again.
That for the Appellant to be sure of the claim of Morinzo Nigeria Limited (Properties), it caused its Counsel Mutum Solicitors to conduct a Legal Search on the said property with the Abuja Geographic information system (AGIS) to confirm the claim of Morinzo Nigeria Limited that it is the rightful holder of the Letter of Allocation. After the search was conducted, the report shows that the Appellant is the holder of the property. Armed with the Letter of Allocation and the search report, the Appellant instituted this matter against Morinzo Nigeria Limited & 2 Ors.
6
The Respondent on the other hand applied to be joined as a party and was so joined by the Court, as the 2nd Defendant. It also presented a Counter-Claim against the Appellant. Names of the initial 1st and 2nd Defendants were struck out by the Court on the application of their Counsel. According to the Respondent, it was incorporated in the year 1986 and the land which is the subject of this appeal was allocated to it, having applied for same on the 25th October, 2010. However, its name was wrongly spelt by the issuing authority on the Letter of Allocation granted to it as Maililu Nig. Ltd instead of Mai ulu Nig. Ltd. After being joined as a party in the matter before the trial Court and while the matter was still pending, the Respondent applied for the correction of the name which was done by the issuing authority. The Appellant was however not put on notice nor informed by the issuing authority when the Letter of Allocation was purportedly corrected while the suit was on going at the trial Court.
In the course of the trial, the following documents were tendered and admitted in evidence by the trial Court thus:
1. MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLES
7
OF ASSOCIATION OF MAILILU NIG. LTD – EXHIBIT A
2. CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF MAILILU NIG. LTD – EXHIBIT A1
3. PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING PEOPLE AT THE DISPUTED SITE TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT – EXHIBI
