MINISTRY OF MINES & STEEL DEVELOPMENT THRIFT & CREDIT COOPORATIVE SOCIETY LTD & ANOR v. RENATION SERVICES LTD & ORS (2022)

MINISTRY OF MINES & STEEL DEVELOPMENT THRIFT & CREDIT COOPORATIVE SOCIETY LTD & ANOR v. RENATION SERVICES LTD & ORS

(2022)LCN/17099(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Tuesday, February 08, 2022

CA/A/614/2016

Before Our Lordships:

Peter Olabisi Ige Justice of the Court of Appeal

Elfrieda Oluwayemisi Williams-Dawodu Justice of the Court of Appeal

Danlami Zama Senchi Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

1. MINISTRY OF MINES AND STEEL DEVELOPMENT THRIFT AND CREDIT COOPORATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED 2. MR. ISAAC ALAJI AGBANWU APPELANT(S)

And

1. RENATION SERVICES LIMITED 2. AMAX INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS LIMITED 3. LIBERTY FROZEN FOODS RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

WHETEHR OR NOT A GOVERNMENT ALONE IS A NECESSARY PARTY TO AN ACTION FOR ITS ACTS OR OMISSION IN THE GRANT OF A STATUTORY RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY

In the case of ALH. ISIAKU TAHIR ISAH & ANOR V. KADUNA STATE MINISTRY OF LAND, SURVEY AND COUNTRY PLANNING & ANOR (2019) LPELR-48091, this Court in considering who a necessary party is and whether a government alone is a necessary party to an action for its acts or omission in the grant of a statutory right of occupancy held as follows:
“A close look at those reliefs or claims will reveal that those claims were directed at government as reported by the Respondent, i.e. the Ministry of Lands, Survey and Country Planning, Kaduna State whose duty/responsibility under the Land Use Act among other things is to make grants and/or issue title documents. Where therefore in the exercise of its duty/functions to make grants and/or issue documents of title, there is a failure on its part to properly discharge those duty/functions, it is that body or organ alone and none other who should be called upon to answer any question relative to their acts or omissions. The Appellant’s relief at paragraph 16 in the Statement of Claim at pages 5-8 of the Record is for a declaratory Order that a grant or regrant of statutory Right of Occupancy cannot be made in favour of a non-juristic person. By reason of Section 5(1) (a) of the Land Use Act, it is Government (1st Respondent) that has the power to grant statutory Right of Occupancy to any person, of any land, whether or not the land is in an urban area. Where therefore the complaint or declaration sought is against the Governor (1st Respondent) for carrying out its duty/functions without due regard to the law and procedure for carrying out those activities, as in land matters, it is against that body or organ alone that an action can be maintained for its failure or ineptitude in the discharge of its obligation as a necessary party in this connection. I find it difficult to find space for the 2nd Respondent’s contention that himself ought to have been joined to the suit as a necessary party who was affected by the claim or the reliefs which otherwise indicate that only the 1st Respondent can explain why a grant had to be made and a certificate of grant issued to a non-juristic person.” PER SENCHI, J.CA.

DEFINITION OF A NECESSARY PARTY

A necessary party is that person who is not only interested in the subject matter of the proceedings but also who in his absence, the proceedings cannot be fairly dealt with. In other words, the question to settle in the action between the existing parties must be a question which cannot be properly settled unless he is a party to the action instituted by the Plaintiff. See GREEN V. GREEN (SUPRA). PER SENCHI, J.CA.

WHETHER OR NOT A PROCEEDINGS CAN BE DEFEATED BY REASON OF MISJOINDER OR NON-JOINDER

It is trite and settled through long line of cases that no proceedings shall be defeated by reason of misjoinder or non-joinder of parties and the Court shall deal with the case as presented in respect of the rights of the parties before it. In other words, once the named Plaintiff has the locus standi to bring the action and the action discloses a cause for it against the named Defendant, the non-joinder of another Plaintiff with the requisite locus standi or another Defendant against whom there is a cause of action, should not defeat the proceedings. The Court should determine the case as presented before it. See the cases of NWEKE V. NWEKE 2014 LPELR-CA/E/93/2013 and A-G RIVERS STATE V. A-G AKWA IBOM STATE 2011 29 WRN 1. PER WILLIAMS-DAWODU, J.C.A.

DANLAMI ZAMA SENCHI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/1743/2010 delivered on the 21st day of March, 2016 by Jude O. Okeke, J. (of blessed memory).

The 2nd and 3rd Respondents (as Plaintiffs at the lower Court) had pursuant to a Writ of Summons filed on 14th April, 2010 and an Amended Statement of Claim filed on 14th September, 2012 claimed against the Defendants (now Appellants) the following Reliefs:
(1) A DECLARATION that the 1st Plaintiff is entitled to the Right of Occupancy No. MISC 63050 over Plot Number MF 18, Cadastral Zone 05-07 known as Army Post Housing Services Scheme Kurudu Layout Abuja and measuring about 1.50 Hectares and which lies between Plot Numbers MF 18 and MF 19 respectively.
(2) A DECLARATION that the 2nd Plaintiff is entitled to the Right of Occupancy No. MFCT/ZA/AMAC/APHS MF 19 and File No. BN 45516 over that piece or parcel of land known as Plot Number MF 18, Cadastral Zone 05-07 known as Army Post Housing Services Scheme Kurudu Layout Abuja and measuring about 200 Hectares which is demarcated by property beacons numbers PB311, PB332, PB333 and PB334 respectively.
(3) A DECLARATION that the acts of entry into Plots MF 18 and MF 19 respectively by the 2nd Defendant and members of the 1st Defendant and the purported assignment of the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs’ said plots of land to persons which has informed their entering into same to carry out the clearing and construction work amount to trespass on the plots of land.
(4) AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the Defendants, their agencies, assigns, servants or any other person by whatever name they are described from entering, trespassing or taking by force Plot Numbers MF 18 and 19 respectively which are situate, lying and being at the Army Post Housing Scheme, Kurudu Layout Abuja.
(5) The sum of N30,000,000.00 (Thirty Million Naira) only, for each of the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs as general damages against the Defendants jointly and severally for trespassing into the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs’ Plots of land numbers MF 18 and MF 19 respectively and lying in the Army Post Housing Scheme, Kurudu Layout Abuja.
(6) The Cost of this Action.

The 1st Respondent, by its Amended Statement of Claim filed on 17th March, 2011 also claimed against the Appellants the following Reliefs:
(1) A Declaration that she is entitled to the Right of Occupancy No. MZTP/U/MISC/9608 over Plots No. MF16 Cadastral Zone 05-07 known as Army Post Services Housing Scheme, Kurudu Layout Abuja, measuring about 1.70 Ha and demarcated by property beacon Nos PB 580, PB 565A, PB 566A, PB 520 and PB 581 to the starting point.
(2) A Declaration that she is entitled to the Right of Occupancy No. MZTP/LA/MISC/9605 over that piece of land known as mot No. MF 17, Cadastral Zone 05-07 Army Post Services Housing Scheme, Kurudu Layout, measuring about 2.07 Ha demarcated by property beacon Nos: PB 520, PB 521, PB 583 and PB 582 to the starting point.
(3) A Declaration that the 2nd Defendant entering the Plot and letting unknown persons into the Plot to carry out construction work amount to trespass on the plots.
(4) The sum of N30,000,000.00 (Thirty Million Naira) being general damages against the Defendants jointly and severally for trespassing on the 3rd Plaintiff’s Plot Nos: MF 16 and MF 17 Army Post Services Housing Scheme, Kurudu Layout, Abuja.
(5) The cost of this action.
(6) An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, Agents, assigns, servants or any other person by whatever name so described from entering or trespassing on the plots nos: MF 16 and MF 17 Army Post Services Housing Scheme, Kurudu Layout, Abuja.

The two sets of Respondents (Plaintiffs) filed their Statements of Claim accompanied with their respective Witness Statements on Oath and other processes.

In response, the Appellants (Defendants) on 27th January, 2012 filed an Amended Statement of Defence accompanied with their Witness Statement on Oath and other processes.

On 13th of February, 2012, PW1 and PW2 – Alhaji Sule Salami and Amaka Nwabichiri – testified on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents at the lower Court. Both witnesses adopted their respective Witness Statement on Oath deposed to on 15th January, 2011 and 16th December 2011 as their evidence-in-chief. Documents were tendered and admitted in evidence on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents through PWs 1 and 2.

On 18th February, 2013, PW3, Solomon Egwu testified on behalf of the 1st Respondent. He adopted the two Witness Statements on Oath he deposed to on 10/10/2012 and 16/01/2013 as his evidence in the matter. Documents were also tendered and admitted in evidence through PW3 on behalf of the 1st Respondent at the lower Court.

The Defendants/Appellants called four witnesses that testified on their behalf as DWs 1, 2, 3 and 4. They adopted their respective Witness Statement on Oath as their evidence in their defence.

As reflected in the Record of Appeal, all the witnesses called in this case were cross-examined and subsequently discharged.
Final Written Addresses were filed and exchanged.

The brief facts of the case before the lower Court as presented by the pleadings of the parties is that upon their application, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs (2nd, 3rd and 1st Respondents) were granted Rights of Occupancy to Plots M18 (in 1998), M19 (in 1998) and M16/M17 (in 2006) respectively, at the Army Post Housing Services Scheme, Kurudu Layout, Abuja by the Abuja Municipal Area Council on behalf of the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory. However, in November 2009, the Plaintiffs discovered that the said plots were being cleared preparatory to the commencement of building, and after enquiries were made, the Plaintiffs were informed that it was the 2nd Defendant (2nd Appellant) who allotted the plots to some persons for development. When confronted, the 2nd Defendant confirmed he had allotted the said plots, having obtained title to same from a company known as Various Builders International, who had been exercising all rights of ownership over the parcel of land since 2002.

On the 21st day of March, 2016, the learned trial Judge of the lower Court delivered his judgment as contained at pages 638-671 of the Record of Appeal.

Aggrieved with the decision of the learned trial Judge, the Appellants on the 20th of April, 2016 filed a Notice of Appeal to this Court. (See pages 672-687 of the Record of Appeal). The Notice of Appeal contained six Grounds, but was later amended and filed on 31/01/2020 with the following Grounds (reproduced without their particulars):
GROUND ONE
The learned trial Judge erred in law by awarding title to Plots MF 16 and MF 17 to the 3rd Plaintiff/1st Respondent when the issuing authorities vide Abuja Metropolitan Management Council had declared the said title documents forged, null and void.
GROUND TWO
The learned trial Judge erred in law when he stated thus:
“I come to the inescapable conclusion that the Defendants did not prove on the preponderance of evidence its root of title as well as a valid grant or acquisition of the said Plot ED1602D”
GROUND THREE
The learned trial Judge erred in law when he stated inter alia:
“…the Court holds that by entering the plots aforesaid and admittedly letting their members into the plots as well as dividing and allocating same to their members for development, the Defendants engaged in trespass into the 3rd Plaintiff’s said Plots MF16 and MF17. Relief No. (iii) of the 3rd Plaintiff’s Amended Statement of Claim is in the light of these granted. The Defendants are hereby declared trespassers into the said Plots MF16 and MF17.”
GROUND FOUR
The judgment is against the weight of evidence.

The Record of Appeal was compiled and transmitted on the 4th day of November, 2016 and deemed as duly compiled and transmitted on 20th January, 2020.

The Appellant’s Brief of Argument was filed on 13th March, 2020 and the Appellant’s Reply Brief was filed on 11th October, 2021.

The 1st Respondent filed its Brief of Argument on 11th June, 2020 but it was deemed duly filed and served on 29th September, 2021.

The learned Counsel to the Appellants, Waheed Gbadamosi Esq., who settled the Appellant’s Brief of Argument adopted same and urged the Court to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the lower Court.

The 1st Respondent’s Brief of Argument was settled by Paul O. Eshiemomoh Esq. who adopted same and urged the Court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the lower Court. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents did not file any Brief of Argument.

The Appellants, in their Brief of Argument, formulated two Issues for Determination as follows:
(1) Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, whether the trial Court rightly assumed jurisdiction on the 3rd Plaintiff/1st Respondent’s case as presented at trial (Grounds 1 and 2)
(2) Whether there is justification for N10,000,000.00 damages awarded in favour of the 3rd Plaintiff/1st Respondent against the Appellants herein (Ground 3).

The 1st Respondent, on the other hand, distilled two Issues for Determination of the instant appeal as follows:
(1) Whether having regard to the totality of the evidence of parties before the Court, the learned trial Judge as against the 1st Plaintiff was right when he held that the 1st Respondent was entitled to Plots Numbers MF16 and MF17 and his conclusion that the Appellants did not prove on preponderance of evidence its root of title or valid grant or acquisition of Plot 1602D (Derived from Grounds 1 and 2).
(2) Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that by the act of the Appellants entering the 1st Respondent’s plot and letting their members into the Plots No. MF16 and MF17, they had trespassed on the 1st Respondent’s plot and eo ipso adjudged trespassers (Distilled from Ground 3).

APPELLANTS’ ARGUMENT ON ISSUES
APPELLANTS’ ISSUE ONE
At paragraphs 4.2-4.7 of the Appellants’ Brief of Argument, learned Counsel to the Appellants submits to the effect that the 3rd Plaintiff/1st Respondent’s case was defective, having not been properly constituted, as all necessary and desirable parties were not made parties, hence the trial Court was deprived of the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the case. Counsel submits further to the effect that the 1st Respondent made references to allocating authorities at paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10 and 16 of its Amended Statement of Claim and paragraphs 10 and 11 of its Reply to the Defendant’s Amended Statement of Defence, and those authorities which ought to have been joined as parties in this suit were not joined, thus making the suit defective. Counsel contends that the need to make the allocating authorities (i.e. the Abuja Municipal Area Council, Minister of the Federal Capital Territory and Ministry of the Federal Capital Territory) parties to this suit is premised particularly on Exhibit DD dated November 12, 2009 and addressed to the 3rd Plaintiff/1st Respondent. He contends further that the denial of the 3rd Plaintiff/1st Respondent’s title vide Exhibit DD ought to have compelled the 3rd Plaintiff/1st Respondent to join the said allocating authorities amongst others, as they were variously mentioned in the 3rd Plaintiff/1st Respondent’s pleadings before the trial Court. The learned Appellants’ Counsel relies on the cases of GREEN V. GREEN (2001) FWLR (PT. 76) 795 AT 817; OKONTA V. PHILIPS (2011) ALL FWLR (PT. 568) SC 977 AT 980-981; ADISA V. OYINWOLA (2000) FWLR (PT. 8) SC 1349 AT 1384.

It is the contention of the learned Appellants’ Counsel that the evidence of DW4, a staff of the Federal Capital Territory Administration, to the effect that Exhibit DD was forged, ought to have made the 1st Respondent join the allocating authorities as parties, and by not challenging this evidence of DW4, the 3rd Plaintiff/1st Respondent’s silence in the circumstance would be regarded as an admission by conduct. Counsel relied on the case of ZENON PETROLEUM & GAS LTD V. IDRISIYYA (NIG) LTD (2006) ALL FWLR (PT. 312) 2121 AT 2140 PARAS D-E.

Counsel to the Appellants submits that there is no basis for the trial Court’s conclusion in its judgment that the Defendants/Appellants herein were under a duty to plead the particulars of forgery alleged by the issuing authority through DW4 without any challenge by the 3rd Plaintiff/ 1st Respondent. He submits further that no oral testimony can be adduced by the 3rd Plaintiff/1st Respondent to impugn the validity of the documentary evidence. Counsel relied on the case of EJIOGU V. ONYEAGUOCHA (2006) ALL FWLR (PT. 317) 467 AT 487 PARAS F-G and AIKI V. IDOWU (2006) ALL FWLR (PT. 293) 361 AT 374, PARAS E-F.

The Appellants’ Counsel contends that the trial Court was in grave error to conclude that Exhibit DD tendered through DW4 amounts to hearsay evidence because the Director of the Department of Urban and Regional Planning who said the documents were forged was not called as a witness. He contends further that it is the position of the law that whoever procures a certified true copy of a public document is competent to tender such document in evidence in any proceeding in Court without calling the public officer who is in custody of the public document and such evidence would not be regarded as hearsay, as held by the trial Court. He relies on the case of AREGBESOLA V. OYINOLA (2009) ALL FWLR (PT. 472) 1147 AT 1181 PARAS A-C.

Counsel to the Appellants submits that the learned trial Judge only placed heavy reliance on the weakness(es) of the Defendant’s case without considering the feeble evidence adduced by the 3rd Plaintiff/1st Respondent in spite of Exhibit DD, contrary to the admonition in the case of OTITO V. ODIDI (2011) 7 NWLR (PT. 1245) 108 AT 126. He urged this Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Appellants.

APPELLANTS’ ISSUE TWO (2)
At paragraphs 5.2-5.4 of the Appellants’ Brief of Argument, learned Counsel to the Appellants submits to the effect that in spite of the 3rd Plaintiff/1st Respondent not being in possession of the plots, the learned trial Judge still awarded N10 million damages against the Appellants and in favour of the 3rd Plaintiff/ 1st Respondent, and this is contrary to the well settled principle of law that trespass is an injury to a possessory right, therefore the proper Plaintiff in such action is the person in possession. Counsel relies on the cases of ECHERE V. EZIRIKE (2006) ALL FWLR (PT. 323) SC 1597 AT 1607, PARAS A-C and TUKURU V. SABI (2013) ALL FWLR (PT. 692) SC AT 1752-1753 PARAS G-B. He submits further that the learned trial Judge acted upon wrong principles of law apart from the fact that the amount awarded was too high, assuming without conceding that the 3rd Plaintiff/1st Respondent even deserve to be so awarded, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case. He relies on the authority of UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC V. AJABULE (2012) ALL FWLR (PT. 611) SC 1413 AT 1434 and states that the instances that will warrant the appellate Court interfering with the damages awarded at the lower Court, as enumerated in the above case, are present in this instant case, and this Court should so hold. He urged this Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Appellant.
In conclusion, Counsel to the Appellant urged this Court to allow this appeal.

1ST RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT ON ISSUES
1ST RESPONDENT’S ISSUE ONE (1)
At paragraphs 4.3-4.4 of the Respondent’s Brief of Argument, learned Counsel to the 1st Respondent submits to the effect that a Plaintiff seeking for declaration of title to land has the burden of proving such title and cannot rely on the weakness of the defence, however, the Courts have also held that in civil cases, the burden of proof is not static and once the Plaintiff has proved his title on a preponderance of evidence, the burden to disprove such evidence shifts to the Defendant. He relies on the authorities of OLANIYON V. FATOKI (2013) 55 NSCQR 147 AT 166 PARAS E-F, ODUNSI V. BAMGBALA (1995)1 NWLR (PT. 374) 641 AT 663 PARAS A-B and Section 136 of the Evidence Act.

Counsel submits further at paragraphs 4.5-4.14 of the 1st Respondent’s Brief of Argument to the effect that the burden having shifted to the Appellants, they failed to adduce evidence to disprove the 1st Respondent’s root of title. He contended that the trial Judge also evaluated the evidence of the Appellant in proof of their title and reviewed the facts as contained in their pleadings and evidence before the Court before arriving at his decision. Counsel contends that the trial Judge rightly averted his mind to the position of law in the case of IDUNDUN V. OKUMAGBA (1976) LPELR-1431 (SC) AT 23-26 PARAS D-C that there are five ways in which a party can establish its title, and a successful establishment of one of the five ways is enough to entitle the party to judgment. He submits to the effect that there is no dispute as to the fact that the 1st Respondent derives its title from the appropriate authority, as shown vide Exhibits K and L which were signed by the authority charged with the responsibility of conferring the right of occupancy in the Federal Capital Territory, and this raised a rebuttable presumption of regularity and thereby placed the burden of proving otherwise on the Appellant. He relies on Section 168 of the Evidence Act and the case of AMAKO V. STATE (1995) 6 NWLR (PT. 399) 11 AT 32 PARAS F-G. Learned Counsel contends that the Appellant raised an allegation of forgery of Exhibits K and L, and it is trite that where a party raises allegation of forgery, being a criminal allegation, the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, and as held by the trial Judge, the Appellants have failed to so prove. He relied on the case of ADAMA BEVERAGES LTD V. AKAM (2015) LPELR-40417 (CA) AT PP 15-18, PARAS E-F.

It is the contention of Counsel to the 1st Respondent that the finding by the trial Judge that the Appellant woefully failed to trace their root of title to their purported guarantor (Various Builders International) which was not a legal personality as at the time the plot was purportedly granted to it by the Minister of the FCT is unassailable, and since such finding has not been appealed against, he urges this Court to hold it as unassailable.

1ST RESPONDENT’S ISSUE TWO (2)
Learned Counsel to the 1st Respondent submitted at paragraph 5.1- 5.5 of the 1st Respondent’s Brief of Argument to the effect that in response to paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of their Amended Statement of Claim, the Appellants only proffered a general denial, hence, the failure of the Appellants to expressly and unequivocally deny the allegation of facts in paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of the 1st Respondents Amended Statement of Claim, it amounts to an admission which places a lighter burden on the 1st Respondent. Counsel submits further at paragraphs 5.6-5.12 of his Brief of Argument to the effect that the learned trial Judge was right in relying on the evidence before him to hold that the Appellant admitted allowing its members to trespass on the plots in dispute, and also that the 1st Respondent had a valid title over the plots, while the Appellant failed to prove its title over the plots. Counsel submits to the effect that in a claim for trespass where title is put in issue, the party with valid title is imputed by law to be in possession and can successfully maintain an action for trespass, and the 1st Respondent, having proved superior title, the Appellants were in trespass and the fact that it was the 1st Appellant’s members who were building on the plot cannot relieve them of liability for trespass. He relies on the cases of AMEEN V. AMAO (2013) 53 NSCQR (PT. 1) P 414 AT 432-433, PARAS F-C and ACB V. APUGO (1995)6 NWLR (PT. 399) P. 65 AT 82 PARAS G-H. He urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the 1st Respondent.

1ST RESPONDENT’S REPLY TO THE APPELLANTS’ ISSUES
FOR DETERMINATION
At paragraphs 6.1-6.9 of the 1st Respondent’s Brief of Argument, Counsel to the 1st Respondent submits to the effect that it is trite law that Issues for Determination must germinate or take root from Grounds of Appeal, and any issue formulated outside the precinct of Ground(s) of Appeal is incompetent, also, a Ground of Appeal from which no issue is distilled is deemed abandoned. He relied on the cases of AKPONIPERE V. STATE (2013) 53 NSCQR 437 AT 447; NWEZE V. STATE (2007) 70 NSCQR 67 and ABDU V. STATE (2016) 68 NSCQR 570 AT PP 582-583 PARAS F-B. He submits further that Issues 1 and 2 raised by the Appellants did not germinate or arise from the Grounds of Appeal as contained in their Amended Notice of Appeal, and the Appellants having not formulated any live issues from the three Grounds of Appeal in their Notice of Appeal, the three Grounds are deemed abandoned. Counsel submits that although the issue of jurisdiction as raised in the Appellant’s Issue 1 can be raised at any time, for it to be raised for the first time on appeal, it must form part of the Grounds of Appeal. He relies on the case of INTER-BAN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD V. IKE (1993)7 NWLR (PT. 304) P. 151 AT 166 PARAS A-B. 167 PARA G.

At paragraphs 6.14-6.18 of the 1st Respondent’s Brief of Argument, Counsel to the 1st Respondent replies to the Appellants’ issues on the merit to the effect that the Appellants’ arguments are misconceived and the case of GREEN V. GREEN relied on by the Appellants is not applicable, as the principles and facts are not similar with the principles and facts in the instant appeal. He submits that throughout the Appellants’ case before the lower Court, the Appellants never alleged any wrong against any or all of the parties which they argued to the effect that they ought to have been joined. He submits further that the decision to proceed against a party lies with the Plaintiff, as he can only join parties against whom he has an action. He relied on Order 10 Rule 3(i) FCT High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 and the case of LSBPC V. PURIFICATION TECH LTD (2012) 52 NSCQR (PT. 1) P. 274 AT 229. In conclusion, the learned Counsel urged this Court to dismiss this appeal.

APPELLANTS’ REPLY TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
At paragraphs 2.1-2.2 of the Appellants’ Reply Brief of Argument, Counsel to the Appellants submits to the effect that contrary to the arguments of the 1st Respondent at paragraphs 6.5 and 6.10 of the 1st Respondent’s Brief of Argument, a close perusal of the Appellants’ Grounds of Appeal and issues distilled therefrom will clearly show the link between them. He submits further a close perusal of the particulars of error in both Grounds 1 and 2 leaves no doubt that the jurisdiction of the trial Court is being challenged by the Appellants on the grounds that the absence of proper parties to the case deprived the trial Court of the prerequisite jurisdiction to adjudicate on the 1st Respondent’s case at trial, as same is an important feature that prevents the Court from exercising its jurisdiction. He relies on the cases of OKARIKA V. SAMUEL (2013) ALL FWLR (PT. 706) SC 484 AT 505 and RINCO CONST. CO. LTD V. VEEPEE IND LTD (2005) ALL FWLR (PT. 264) SC 816 AT 825.

At paragraph 2.3 of the Appellants’ Reply Brief of Argument, learned Counsel to the Appellants submitted that contrary to the contention of the 1st Respondent’s Counsel, a close perusal of Ground 3 will reveal reference to the damages awarded against them by the trial Court, hence, Ground 3 of the Appellants’ Grounds of Appeal and particulars of error (b) left no one in doubt that the Appellants’ complain on this Ground of Appeal borders on N10 million damages awarded in favour of the 1st Respondent against the Appellants. He urged this Court to discountenance the submission of the 1st Respondent’s Counsel in his Brief of Argument. In conclusion, Counsel to the Appellant urged this Court to allow this appeal.

RESOLUTION OF ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
The resolution of issues formulated for determination of this appeal will be determined based on the two issues distilled by the Appellants. I therefore adopt the two issues to determine this appeal.

ISSUE ONE:
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, whether the trial Court rightly assumed jurisdiction on the 3rd Plaintiff/1st Respondent’s case as presented at trial.
It is the submission of the learned Counsel to the Appellants at paragraphs 4.2-4.6 of their Brief of Argument to the effect that the major defect inherent in the 3rd Plaintiff/1st Respondent’s case which deprived the trial Court the prerequisite jurisdiction to entertain the case is that the case was not properly constituted, as all necessary and desirable parties were not made parties by the 3rd Plaintiff/1st Respondent herein. He refers me to paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10 and 16 of the Amended Statement of Claim contained at pages 201-206 of the Record of Appeal to the effect that in respect of the allocation to the 3rd Plaintiff/1st Respondent, references were made to the allocating authorities, i.e. Abuja Municipal Area Council, Minister of the Federal Capital Territory and Ministry of the Federal Capital Territory, and the said authorities were not made parties in the suit. Learned Counsel to the Appellants cited a plethora of judicial authorities to support this very important contention.

The 1st Respondent’s Counsel on the other hand submits at paragraphs 4.2-4.22 of the 1st Respondent’s Brief of Argument to the effect that the main claim of the 1st Respondent as 3rd Plaintiff before the lower Court as contained in its Amended Statement of Claim are declaratory, general damages for trespass and perpetual injunction. (See pages 639-640 of the Record of Appeal). He contends that the burden of proving such declaratory reliefs or title to land rests on the 1st Respondent and they cannot rely on the weakness of the defence. He cited many cases to support his position.

Learned Counsel to the 1st Respondent posits that the 1st Respondent led credible evidence through PW3 and Exhibits ‘K’ and ‘L’ were issued by the authorities charged with the responsibility of conferring Right of Occupancy in the Federal Capital Territory (i.e. the Minister). He submits that this Court and indeed the Supreme Court had held that there are five variously established ways of proving title to land by a party, and in the instant case, the 1st Respondent had proved its title by virtue of Exhibits ‘K’ and ‘L’ and that the presumption of regularity is in their favour.

Now, I have seen and perused the arguments of Counsel contained in their respective Briefs of Arguments. The point of complaint of the Appellants is that the suit before the lower Court was defective because necessary parties, i.e. Abuja Municipal Area Council, the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory Abuja and the Federal Capital Territory were not made parties. In the case of ALH. ISIAKU TAHIR ISAH & ANOR V. KADUNA STATE MINISTRY OF LAND, SURVEY AND COUNTRY PLANNING & ANOR (2019) LPELR-48091, this Court in considering who a necessary party is and whether a government alone is a necessary party to an action for its acts or omission in the grant of a statutory right of occupancy held as follows:
“A close look at those reliefs or claims will reveal that those claims were directed at government as reported by the Respondent, i.e. the Ministry of Lands, Survey and Country Planning, Kaduna State whose duty/responsibility under the Land Use Act among other things is to make grants and/or issue title documents. Where therefore in the exercise of its duty/functions to make grants and/or issue documents of title, there is a failure on its part to properly discharge those duty/functions, it is that body or organ alone and none other who should be called upon to answer any question relative to their acts or omissions. The Appellant’s relief at paragraph 16 in the Statement of Claim at pages 5-8 of the Record is for a declaratory Order that a grant or regrant of statutory Right of Occupancy cannot be made in favour of a non-juristic person. By reason of Section 5(1) (a) of the Land Use Act, it is Government (1st Respondent) that has the power to grant statutory Right of Occupancy to any person, of any land, whether or not the land is in an urban area. Where therefore the complaint or declaration sought is against the Governor (1st Respondent) for carrying out its duty/functions without due regard to the law and procedure for carrying out those activities, as in land matters, it is against that body or organ alone that an action can be maintained for its failure or ineptitude in the discharge of its obligation as a necessary party in this connection. I find it difficult to find space for the 2nd Respondent’s contention that himself ought to have been joined to the suit as a necessary party who was affected by the claim or the reliefs which otherwise indicate that only the 1st Respondent can explain why a grant had to be made and a certificate of grant issued to a non-juristic person.”
A necessary party is that person who is not only interested in the subject matter of the proceedings but also who in his absence, the proceedings cannot be fairly dealt with. In other words, the question to settle in the action between the existing parties must be a question which cannot be properly settled unless he is a party to the action instituted by the Plaintiff. See GREEN V. GREEN (SUPRA). In the instant case, I have perused the claims or reliefs of the 1st Respondent/3rd Plaintiff in its Amended Statement of Claim at page 639-640 of the Record of Appeal. The reliefs sought therein are not complaining of any action or omission of the allocating authority. In fact, Exhibits ‘K’ and ‘L’ are letters of grant or allocation and by virtue of the reliefs claimed, the 1st Respondent is only asserting that it has title to the plots of land, the subject matter of the dispute. It is entirely a claim against those found on the 1st Respondent’s lands (the Appellants), who should now come forward and assert if they have a better title than that of the 1st Respondent.
In the instant case, the 1st Respondent had at the lower Court adduced credible evidence by virtue of the testimony of PW3 and Exhibits ‘K’ and ‘L’, as well as Exhibits and the TDP N to N5, receipts of payments, and O and O(i), deposit slips and acknowledgment slips issued by Abuja Geographic Information Systems (AGIS) in Exhibits ‘P’ and ‘Q’.
All these exhibits, i.e. documentary evidence show that the 1st Respondent was granted Plots M16 and M17 by the appropriate approving authority, i.e. the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja through Abuja Municipal Area Council. Thus, in line with the methods of proving title to land, the 1st Respondent has produced title documents to the disputed lands in line with a plethora of judicial authorities. The lower Court was therefore right at the second paragraph of page 664 of the Record of Appeal when it held and declared that the 3rd Plaintiff (1st Defendant) is entitled to the Right of Occupancy in respect of Plot MF16 and MF17 lying and being in Army Post Services Housing Scheme, Kurudu Layout, Abuja, measuring 1.70 hectares and 2.7 hectares respectively.
This finding of the trial Court, after proper evaluation of evidence of all contending parties cannot be faulted.
Thus, I hold the view that on the claims of the 1st Respondent before the lower Court, the Abuja Municipal Area Council, the Minister of the FCT or the Ministry of Federal Capital Territory Abuja are not necessary parties, and their absence would not affect the action, and I so hold. Consequently, Issue One of the Appellants is hereby resolved against the Appellants and in favour of the 1st Respondent.

ISSUE TWO
On whether there is justification for the N10,000,000.00 damages awarded in favour of the 3rd Plaintiff/1st Respondent, the lower Court at the first paragraph of page 667 of the Record of Appeal made some findings before arriving at an assessment of N10,000,000.00 in favour of the 3rd Plaintiff/1st Respondent against the Defendants jointly and severally.

After a careful perusal of the pleadings of parties and the evidence adduced by both, and also taking into account the fact that the 3rd Plaintiff/1st Respondent has been deprived of profitable use or development of the plots of land granted to it, and the entry of the Defendants since 2009, the lower Court properly exercised its discretion in awarding the sum of N10,000,000.00 as general damages for the trespass against the Defendant’s land. Therefore, this Court cannot interfere with such proper exercise of discretion. The second issue is hereby resolved against the Appellants and in favour of the 1st Respondent. Consequently, this appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed.

The judgment of the lower Court in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/1743/2010 delivered by Jude O. Okeke, J. (of blessed memory) is hereby affirmed.
No award as to cost.

PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A.: I agree.

ELFRIEDA OLUWAYEMISI WILLIAMS-DAWODU, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading in draft, the lead judgment of my learned brother, Danlami Zama Senchi, JCA, and I am in agreement with the reasoning and conclusion reached therein.

It is trite and settled through long line of cases that no proceedings shall be defeated by reason of misjoinder or non-joinder of parties and the Court shall deal with the case as presented in respect of the rights of the parties before it. In other words, once the named Plaintiff has the locus standi to bring the action and the action discloses a cause for it against the named Defendant, the non-joinder of another Plaintiff with the requisite locus standi or another Defendant against whom there is a cause of action, should not defeat the proceedings. The Court should determine the case as presented before it. See the cases of NWEKE V. NWEKE 2014 LPELR-CA/E/93/2013 and A-G RIVERS STATE V. A-G AKWA IBOM STATE 2011 29 WRN 1.

In the light of the foregoing and given the articulated reasoning in the lead judgment, I also find the appeal lacking in merit and it is hereby dismissed. I affirm the judgment of the Court below in suit No. FCT/HC/CV/1743/2010 delivered by Jude O. Okeke, J. (of blessed memory).
I make no order as to costs.