THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ABIA STATE & ORS v. UZOMBA OKARA & ORS (2014)

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ABIA STATE & ORS v. UZOMBA OKARA & ORS

(2014)LCN/7254(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Friday, the 30th day of May, 2014

CA/OW/1M/2012

RATIO

WHETHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL MUST ARISE FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE LOWER COURT

It is the law that grounds of appeal must flow or arise from or be intertwined with the judgment of the court appealed from. It must be targeted against the ratio of the judgment. Therefore any ground of appeal which does not arise or flow from the ratio of the judgment appealed against is incompetent. See C.P.C. VS INEC & ORS (2011) 18 N.W.L.R. (PART 1279) 493 at 532 H per ADEKEYE, JSC who held:
“Any grounds of appeal which do not arise from the ratio of the judgment appeared against equally cannot stand for reason of incompetency.”
The law is also inviolate that issues formulated for determination in an appeal must be tied to a competent or viable ground of appeal UNITY BANK PLC & ANOR. VS BOURI (2008) S 2-3 SC (Pt.11) 1 and UGO V. OBIEKWE (1989) 2 SC (Pt. 11) 41. per PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A.

JURISDICTION: WHETHER IT IS THE CLAIM THAT DETERMINES A COURT’S JURISDICTION IN A MATTER

It is the law that it is the claim before the court that has to be looked at or examined in order to ascertain whether it comes within the jurisdiction conferred on the particular court by the Constitution or by a statute. See ADEYEMI & ORS VS. OPEYORI (1976) 9 – 10 SC 31 at 51. per PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A.

JURISDICTION: WHEN AN ACTION IS DEEMED TO HAVE COMMENCED WITHOUT FOLLOWING DUE PROCESS OF LAW

The law is settled that where a statute or Rules are put in place for compliance for institution or commencement of an action or proceedings, the method mode or procedure prescribed must be religiously followed by a claimant/claimants in approaching the court for redress otherwise the action will be incompetent and will consequently robs the court of jurisdiction, the action will be deemed to have commenced without following the due process of law. See AGIP NIGERIA LTD VS. AGIP PETRO INTERNATIONAL & ORS (2010) 5 NWLR (PART 1187) 348 at 419 H to 420 A Per ADEKEYE JSC who held “More important is that where a statute or rule of Court provides for a procedure for the commencement of an action, failure to follow that procedure renders any suit commenced otherwise incompetent.
In the case of Obasanjo Vs. Yusuf (2004) 9 NWLR (PT. 877) PG. 144 at PAGE 221, the court decided that:
“It is elementary law that a plaintiff in the commencement of an action, must comply strictly with the provisions of the enabling law. He cannot go outside the enabling law for redress.” per PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A.

JUSTICES:

UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

PHILOMENA MBUA EKPE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

PETER OLABISI IGE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

1. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ABIA STATE
2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
3. ABIA STATE GOVERNMENT
4. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, ABIA STATE – Appellant(s)

AND

1. UZOMBA OKARA
2. OBIOMA NWANEZE
3. OBINALI KANU
(For themselves and as representing Ndagbo Eluama Community Uzuakoli) – Respondent(s)

PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal raises the question concerning actions or Suit that can be commenced or brought pursuant to the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS (ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE) RULES 2009 made by the Chief Justice of Nigeria under Section 46 (3) of the Constitution of Nigeria, 1999 in matters dealing with breaches of Fundamental Rights provisions in Chapter IV of the said Constitution.
The proceedings in this action was initiated vide a Motion on Notice by the Respondents who were the APPLICANTS at the lower Court, dated 12th day of November, 2010 filed on 15th November, 2010 wherein they sought for the following reliefs:-
1. A DECLARATION that the applicants are constitutionally entitled to own and enjoy immovable property, to wit; all that piece and or parcel of land traditionally called INYAM measuring about 10 hectares lying and situate at Ndagbo-Eluama Uzuakoli, Abia State.
2. A DECLARATION that the appropriation of the applicants, said land by the respondents without due regard to the constitutional provisions is illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional, and hence null and void.
3. A DECLARATION that the sale of part of the said land by the Respondents especially the 1st and 2nd Respondents to private individuals, is illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional, and hence null and void.
4. AN ORDER restraining the Respondent by themselves and or through anybody howsoever described in further carrying on the said sale and or infringing on the Applicants’ fundamental right to their said property.
5. GENERAL and Exemplary damages in the sum of N100,000,000.00 for the infraction of the Applicants’ fundamental right to their said property.
The said relief were predicated upon the following grounds namely:-
“GROUNDS UPON WHICH THE RELIEFS ARE SOUGHT
1. By virtue of Ss. 43 and 44 CFRN ’99 as well as Art 14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples right, applicants have the fundamental right to own/acquire immoveable property.
2. By virtue of S. 44 (1) CFRN ’99 and S. 28 Land Use Act, payment of prompt compensation is a pre condition for acquisition of any private land.
3. The land Use Act did not destroy existing rights over land.
4. In clear violation of Nos. 1-3 above, the Respondents forcibly and with impunity appropriated and sold part of the Applicants’ said land without compensating the Applicants.”
The application was accompanied with Statement and Affidavit of 24 paragraphs which are as follows:
“AFFIDAVIT OF UZOMBA OKARA SETTING OUT FACTS UPON WHICH THE APPLICATION IS MADE
I, UZOMBA OKAM adult male, Christian, NIGERIAN, FARMER OF Ndagbo Efuoma Uzuakoli, Abia State do make oath and state as follows:
1. That I am one of the applicants in this application by virtue of which I am conversant with the facts of this case.
2. That I have the consent and authority of my co-applicants as described in paragraph 1(2) & (3) of the Statement made in support of this application as well as the entire Ndagbo Eluama Uzuakoli People to depose to this affidavit.
3. That the Applicants are the undisputed Communal/Indigenous owners of that entire piece or parcel of land situate on both sides of Uzuakoli/Ozuitem Road, off Arochukwu/Uzuakoli/Umuahia Federal Road traditionally called INYAM and situate at Ndagbo-Eluama Uzuakoli.
4. That the Applicants equally are the undisputed communal/indigenous owners of the vast piece or parcel of land housing the Nigeria Railway Corporation, Uzuakoli as well as the Uzuakoli General Market.
5. That the applicants use the entire Ndagbo land communally till date.
6. That the 1st Respondent is the officer in charge of Police formation and control in Abia State; the 2nd Respondent is in charge of police formation throughout Nigeria, including Abia state, the 3rd Respondent is a creation of the Nigerian Constitution and is the Government in charge of the whole Abia state while 4th Respondent is the chief Law officer of Abia State.
7. That in breach of the applicants’ constitutionally guaranteed right to property, Respondents forcibly invaded into part of the said land and appropriated for themselves an area of land measuring approximately 10 hectares of land without any notice to the applicants and or paying any compensation to them.
8. That the land the respondents forcibly entered in breach of Applicants’ fundamental right to property is bounded as follows: standing on the main Arochukwu/Uzuakoli/Umuahia Road and facing the land, the front is bounded by the land of the people of Amuhi-Eluama Uzuakoli, at the right hand side is bounded by the Uzuakoli/Ozuitem Road; at the left hand side is a road leading to the Methodist church Manse, Uzuakoli while at the back is the Uzuakoli main market.
9. That the Respondents know the land very well.
10. That the applicants had been orally complaining to the Respondents before now about their presence on their Communal land with no responses to their complaints.
11. That I know as a fact that part of the applicants’ said land which the Respondents forcibly appropriated now houses the divisional Police Headquarters of the Nigeria Police, Uzuakoli Police Division, its residential quartzes as well as the High Court Building, Uzuakoli Judicial Division.
12. That as if the Respondents are not contented with the forcible appropriation and erection of the afore-stated buildings thereon, the respondents lately in September, 2010 embarked on the sale of portions of the said land to individuals at the rate of N150,000.00 per 10 square metres by 10 square metres and keeping the proceeds to themselves.
13. That about that same September, 2010 members of the applicants’ community went to the Divisional Police Officer in charge of the Uzuakoli police division as well as the Abia State Commissioner of Police to complain of the illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional rand forcible appropriation and sale of portions of the applicants, land.
14. That instead of being reasonable with the applicants, the said commissioner of Police ordered that the Applicants and the representatives of the Ndagbo Eluama people be locked up in the police cell built on Applicants’ portion of land illegally and forcibly appropriated by the Respondents on breach of applicants’ fundamental right to property.
15. That it was only on the intervention of a retired assistant superintendent of Police (ASP Igwe) that saved the applicants community the added degradation of being locked up for questioning the infringement of their Fundamental Right to property.
16. That I was informed by our solicitor Okorie, N.A Esq and I verily believed him as follows:
1) That the Applicants have the fundamental right to own immovable property anywhere within Nigeria.
2) That there are conditions provided in the constitution under which the said applicants’ fundamental right to property may be tampered with.
3) That conditions for appropriation of applicants’ constitutionally entrenched right to property include, interalia:
i. Revocation of the applicants’ right for overriding public purposes.
ii. Publication of the said revocation and the specific public purpose.
iii. Giving Notices of revocation personally to the applicants.
iv. Prompt payment of compensation to the applicants.
17. That I know as a fact that none of the conditions stipulated in paragraph 18 (3)(i)-(iv) above has been met by the respondents in respect of the applicants’ said property.
18. That till date, the applicants have not been notified on why and how the Respondents came into applicants’ land without prior revocation of applicants’ interest on the said land as well as payment of compensation.
19. That the Applicants are now landless in their own community and have the added pains and suffering of being forced to acquire land from other land owning communities at exorbitant cost for their farming and housing needs.
20. That the Respondents have no right to breach applicants’ right to property and or to sell off applicants’ land to private individuals.
21. That unless this Court promptly intervenes, applicants’ said fundamental right being breached by the Respondents will continue unabated and with impunity while applicants will continue to suffer.
22. That the applicants adopt and rely on all legal and equitable principles available to them as part of this affidavit of fact.
23. That it is in the interest of justices to grant this application.
24. That I make this affidavit in good faith land in accordance with the relevant Oath Laws.”
The application was also accompanied with an APPLICANTS’ WRITTEN ADDRESS filed same 15th day of November 2011 by the Learned Counsel to the APPLICANTS NOW RESPONDENT N.A. OKORIE ESQ.
The 3rd and 4th Respondents on 6th day of April 2011 filed Notice of Preliminary Objection which reads thus:
“NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION BROUGHT PURSUANT TO ORDER 8 OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS (ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE) RULES 2009.
TAKE NOTICE that this Honourable court shall be moved on 11th day of April, 2011 at the hour of 9 O’clock in the forenoon or so soon thereafter as the 3rd and 4th Respondents/Applicants or Counsel on their behalf will be heard praying the Honourable Court for the following: –
(a) Striking out the names of the 3rd and 4th respondents for non disclosure of any reasonable cause of action.
(b) Striking out this application in-limine for being grossly incompetent and lack of jurisdiction by the Court to entertain same.
(c) AND for such other order(s) as the court may deem fit to make in the circumstance.
(d) AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that grounds upon which this application is brought is that the applicants did not comply with the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009 and that the cause of action is outside the province of chapter iv of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.”
The 3rd and 4th Appellants followed this up by filing a Counter affidavit consist of 17 paragraphs against the Respondents application which are as follows:-

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT
I, CHINWE EJIM, adult, female, Christian, Nigerian a Civil Servant of Ministry of Justice, Umuahia Abia State, do make oath and state as follows:-
1. That I am a chief Litigation officer In the Civil Litigation Department of MINISTRY OF Justice Umuahia, Abia State.
2. That by virtue of my position, I am conversant with the facts of this case.
3. That I have the instruction and consent of the 3rd & 4th Respondents to depose to this affidavit on their behalf.
4. That a copy of the motion on Notice for the enforcement of the fundamental right of the applicants has been shown to me.
5. That I have read same and perfectly understand same.
6. That I have been informed by Okoroafor C. U. of Counsel and I verily believe him on the following facts.
a) That there is need to raise and rely on a preliminary objection that the application is incompetent and the Honourable court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain same.
b) That where the preliminary objection is over ruled, we do hereby subjoin the following averments in opposition to the application.
7. That paragraphs 1, and 2 are admitted.
8. That paragraphs 3 and 4 are admitted only to the extent that applicants are indigenes of Ndagbo Uzuakoli.
9. That paragraphs 5-11 of the affidavit in support are denied. The police Division and the quarters built on the land are for public purpose and interest.
10. That the 3rd and 4th respondents are not in a position to deny or admit paragraphs 12-14 of the affidavit in support of the motion. The applicants are therefore put to the strictest proof of same.
11. That paragraphs 15-24 of the affidavit are false. The Divisional Police Headquarters Uzuakoli was built on the land more than 15 years ago on the request of Uzuakoli indigenes.
12. That the said police headquarter was built on the agreement of Uzuakoli People. Bende Local Government and the approval of the State Government.
13. That the entire area in dispute was designated Uzuakoli Divisional Police Headquarters and has since then been known as Police premises.
14. That I have been informed by Okoroafor of Counsel whom I verily believed that there have never been anytime Uzuakoli people applied to Abia State Government for any form compensation to be paid to them in respect of the land in dispute and then government refused to pay them.
15. That I have been informed by Okoroafor of Counsel whom I verify believed that this application is grossly incompetent based on the following grounds.
a) There is no cause of action against the 3rd and 4th Respondents.
b) The subject matters of the application does not fall within the province of the fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules.
16. That except as admitted herein, I deny all the averments contained in their affidavit and facts relied upon by them.
17. That I make this deposition in good faith believing same to be true to the best of my knowledge and in accordance with the oaths law.

The said Counter Affidavit was accompanied with Written Address of 3rd and 4th Respondents now Appellants in support of their Notice of Preliminary objection and in opposition to the APPLICATION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.
In a considered judgment delivered by the Learned trial Judge on the Preliminary Objection and the Motion on 28th day of June, 2011, the Learned trial Judge held on the Notice of Preliminary objection as follows:
“The above two affidavit evidence of the parties when placed side by side clearly brings out the case of the applicants as one within the province of fundamental right enforcement procedure rules.
There is a clear breach or violation of the applicants fundamental right I align myself to the submissions of Learned Counsel for the applicant that the respondents did not fulfill the provisions of section 28 of the Land Use Act and the decision of the Courts in the cases of Ononuju Vs AG Anambra State (supra), Baba-Iya vs Sikeli (2005) All FWLR (Pt 289) 1230. Ajao Vs Obele (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 262) 544 (cited by Counsel for the applicants). The Respondents failed to show any evidence of the revocation of the interest of the applicants nor did they show that the requirement of the law were complied with infact, the only response in the counter affidavit of the Respondents was that the applicants have not applied to the State Government for compensation to be paid to them.
I want to point out to the Respondents that there is far more than the applicants applying for compensation of their land acquired. The requirements of the law must be fulfilled as anything short of this is null and void. See A.G., Bendel State vs. Aideyan (supra)
Apart from the Respondents not regularizing the acquisition and appropriation of the lands of the applicants, their further act of allocating part of the said land to private use as evidenced by exhibit Ndagbo 1 is illegal and unconstitutional.
From the fact of this application and the surrounding circumstances, it is clear that the fundamental right of the applicants have been violated. The applicants right to own property is constitutional and having established same, this court has the jurisdiction to entertain this application. I find no substance in the preliminary objection raised by Learned Counsel for the 3rd and 4th Respondents and same is hereby discountenanced.”

See pages 51-53 of the record.
On the reliefs sought by the Respondents APPLICANT AT THE COURT BELOW the Learned trial Judge held as follows:-
“Having held that the applicants have proved an infringement to their right to property, this issue is therefore resolved in their favour.

ISSUE NO.3
“Whether applicants are entitled to their reliefs”
Arising from issues Nos 1 and 2, issue No 3 necessarily follows. The applicants having established that they have a right to acquire, own and enjoy their property and that the Respondents have violated this constitutional right of theirs, it then means that they the applicants are entitled to their relief.
Based on the foregoing, the applicants are entitled to their claims. The judgment of this court is entered in favour of the applicant as hereinafter stated.
An Order of this court declaring that the
1. The applicants are constitutionally entitled to own and enjoy immovable property, to wit all that piece and or parcel of land traditionally called INYAM measuring about 10 hectares lying and situate at Ndagbo – Eluama Uzuakoli Abia State.
2. A declaration that the appropriation of the applicants said land by the Respondents without due regard to the constitutional provision is illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional and being null and void.
3. A declaration that the sale of part of the said land by the respondents especially the 1st and 2nd Respondents to private individuals is illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional land hence null and void.
4. An order restraining the respondents by themselves and or through anybody howsoever described from further carrying on the said sale and or infringing on the applicants fundamental right to their said property.
5. N30,000.00 (Thirty Thousand Naira Only) to be paid to the applicants for the infraction of their fundamental right to the same property.
(SGD) HON, JUSTICE J.E. ADIELE
JUDGE
28/06/2011″
Pages 53 – 55 of the record.
Aggrieved by the above decision of the High Court, the 3rd and 4th appellants filed Notice of Appeal dated 30th June, 2011 and filed on 7th day of July, 2011 containing four grounds of appeal which with their particulars are as follows:-

“GROUND ONE: ERROR IN LAW
The learned trial judge erred in law when he held that the court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the case.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
1) The land the subject matter of the application of the applicants houses the Uzuakoli Police Station and the quarters and the High Court Uzuakoli.
2) That the said Police Station and the High Court were built about 15 years ago, without any challenge by the applicants.
3) That the said Police Station and the HIGH COURT were built for public purposes and interest 15 years ago.
GROUNDS 2: ERROR IN LAW
The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that the cause of action is within the province of chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, being a land dispute.

PARTICULARS OF ERROR
1) The land the subject matter of the application was duly acquired by the 3rd and 4th Respondents about 15 years ago.
2) The 3rd and 4th Respondents and with the contributions from members of the applicants community, including the applicants built the Police Station and the HIGH court and Same were handed over to the 1st and 2nd Respondents and the judiciary Abia State by the 3rd and 4th Respondents/Appellants.
3) That at the time of acquisition of the parcels of land, the applicants never challenged the legally or otherwise of the acquisition by the 3rd and 4th Respondents.
4) The Respondents participated fully in the handing over and Commissioning ceremonies of the projects built for public purposes and interest.
5) That the issue of non payment of compensation for the acquisition of the parcels of land by the 3rd and 4th respondents was raised for the first by the applicants by way of Enforcement of their Fundamental right.
6) That the challenge of the validity or otherwise of the acquisition of the land by the 3rd and 4th respondents ought not to be by the procedure adopted by the Applicants/Respondents upon which the court gave judgment in their favour.

GROUND THREE: ERROR IN LAW
The learned trial judge erred in law when he held that compensation was not paid to the Ndagbo Community without hearing evidence from witnesses.

PARTICULARS OF ERROR
1) The issue whether compensation was paid or not is a matter of pleadings and ought not to be based on affidavit evidence.
2) That the claim of the applicants that the land was acquired but compensation was not paid raises the issue of title or ownership of the land which issue should be settled by pleadings.

GROUNDS FOUR ERROR IN LAW
The learned trial judge erred in law when he failed to strike out the names of the 3rd and 4th respondents/appellants for nondisclosure of reasonable cause of action against them.

PARTICULARS OF ERROR
1) For more than 15 years, the 3rd and 4th Respondents/Appellants built and handed over unchallenged, the public structures on the land in dispute to the appropriate authorities including the 1st and 2nd respondents, they had no business again with the said land had never trespassed on the lands of the applicants.
2) At the time the cause of action arose, there was no wrong committed by the 3rd and 4th Respondents against the Applicants.
3) That the grounds of facts and the affidavit in support of the applicants/respondents did not disclose any cause of action against 3rd and 4th Respondents/Appellants.
4) The applicants/Respondents did not show any evidence linking the 3rd and 4th respondents to the allegation of the alleged sale of their Land.

Additional grounds of appeal will be filed upon receipt of the records of appeal or the judgment.
The Appellants Brief of Argument dated 14th day of March, 2012 was filed in this Court on 21st day of March, 2012.
The Respondents filed their Respondent’s Brief of Argument dated 18th day of April 2012 on the same date.
Appellants Reply Brief was filed on 14th day of May 2013. It is dated 15th day of June 2012 but deemed properly filed by this court on 14th day of May, 2013.

This appeal was heard on 5th day of Mach, 2014 when the Learned Counsel to the parties in this appeal adopted their Briefs of Argument on this appeal.
The Learned Counsel to the Appellant Chief C.U. Okoroafor, Director, Citizens Rights in the Abia State Ministry of Justice formulated three issues viz:
“(1) WHETHER THE LEARNED TRIAL JUDGE WAS RIGHT TO ASSUME JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE SUIT GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE.
(2) WAS THE LEARNED TRIAL JUDGE RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE RESPONDENTS CASE WAS WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF CHAPTER IV OF THE1999 CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA BEARING IN MIND THE COMPETING RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES.
(3) WHETHER THE APPLICANTS CAN UNDER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE RULES, 2009 RAISE THE ISSUE OF NON COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAND USE ACT 1978 AND NON PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION OVER GOVERNMENT ACQUIRED AND BUILT UP LAND.”
On their own part the Respondents through their learned Counsel, N.A. Okorie Esq distilled a lone issue for determination of that appeal thus:
“WHETHER THE LOWER COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THIS SUIT AB INITIO.”
I am of the view that this appeal can be determined on the three issue formulated by the appellants. I will treat them in the manner they were argued by the appellants’ Learned Counsel.

ISSUES 1 AND 2
WHETHER THE LEARNED TRIAL JUDGE WAS RIGHT TO ASSUME JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE SUIT GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE.
AND
WAS THE LEARNED TRIAL JUDGE RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE RESPONDENTS’ CASE WAS WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF CHAPTER IV OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA BEARING IN MIND THE COMPETING RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES.
The Learned Counsel to the Appellants Chief C.U. Okoroafor refers to the Notice of Preliminary Objection filed by the Appellants challenging the jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain the Suit and whether the trial Court was right in holding that the Respondents suit was within the province of chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution. That it is the nature of the Plaintiff’s claim that determine the jurisdiction of the court. That in this case it is the reliefs the respondents are claiming that will determine whether it was appropriate for the respondents to have taken the action under fundamental Human Rights Enforcement procedure Rules, 2009.
That any matter begun other than as provided by the rules would be incompetent. And that a court is only competent when a case comes before it upon fulfillment of conditions precedent to exercise of jurisdiction.
He relied on ANYANWOKO v. OKOYE (2010) AFWLR (Pt. 515) 214 at 219. He referred to the reliefs sought by respondents claiming a traditionally called land known as INYAM measuring about 10 hectares lying and situate at Ndagbo Eluama Uzuakoli Abia State placing reliance on Section 44(1) of 1999 Constitution and Section 28 of Land Use Act. That Respondent pleaded the provisions of those laws on payment of prompt compensation for acquisition of any private land and the fact that the Land Use Act did not destroy existing rights over land.

Chief Okoroafor contended that by the averments the Respondents were saying that though their land was acquired by the Appellants due process was not followed in the acquisition. That they asserted in paragraph 4 of their grounds that the Appellants forcibly and with impurity appropriated and sold part of the Respondents land without compensating the Respondents in this appeal. He submitted that the Respondents were saying that the Appellants trespassed upon the lands of Respondents. He drew attention to paragraphs 4-8 of the supporting Affidavits of the Respondents. That a due consideration of the said Affidavit shows that the Respondents/Applicants at court below are asking for three things viz:
(a) Declaration of title since their land was not duly acquired.
(b) Trespass
(c) Non Payment of compensation.

Learned Counsel to the Appellants referred to Appellants Notice of Preliminary Objection and averments in the Counter Affidavit to submit that issues of trespass to land, forcible entry, non payment of compensation and non-compliances with provisions of Land Use Act cannot be determined on affidavit evidence but through pleadings and evidence in an action begun by a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim. That the lower court erroneously agreed with the Respondents when it held on page 54 of the record that:
“The appropriation of the applicants said land by the Respondents without due regard to the constitutional provision is illegal, unlawful unconstitutional and hence null and void.”
That from the Affidavit evidence before the Court the rights of Respondents over the land extinguished more than 15 years ago AS A result of the acquisition by the Appellant. He relied on the case of OGBUEFI VS A.S. E.C. (2011) AFLW (Pt. 603) 1873 at 1872 sic. That the respondents were all aware of the acquisition and the fact that they supported the acquisition and subsequent building of the Divisional Police Headquarters and more recently High court Uzuakoli Judicial Division on the land. That there are ways of proving title to land and that this cannot be done by enforcement of fundamental Rights proceedings. He relied on NWANO vs. OBASE (2012) AFWLR (Pt. 605) s 231 at 236. He also cited the case of UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN V. OLUWADARE (2006) 7 SCNJ 335 at 337 to contend that the lower court has no jurisdiction.

That where as in this case the main or the principal claim is not the enforcement or securing the enforcement of fundamental rights the jurisdiction of the court cannot be property exercised, as it will be incompetent. That when right to own a land which is the right of ownership or title to land which is in possession of another or adverse party is raised such a right is not among the rights guaranteed under the 1999 Constitution. The Learned Counsel to the Appellants urged the Court to hold that the trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
The Respondents under what they termed Preliminary issues asked this court to strike out grounds 3 and 4 of the grounds of appeal and arguments contained in paragraphs 5.01 – 50.2 of the Appellant’s Brief of Argument based on issue number 3 formulated.

The ground for this argument is that the said grounds of appeal are not competent in that they did not attack the ratio of the decision of the lower Courts
The Respondents relied on the following cases viz:
1. CITY EXPRESS BANK LTD V. T & F SERVICES (2005) ALL FWLR (PT. 266) 1241 AT 1243
2. EGBE V. ALHAJI (1990) 1 NWLR (PART 128) 506
3. SAUDE V. ABDULLAHI (1989) 4 NWLR (PART 1160) 387
AND
5. NGIGE V OBI (2006) ALL FWLR (PT. 330) 1041 AT 1059.

In response to the main submissions the Learned counsel to the Respondents N.A. Okorie Esq. started off by stating that the case of Respondent at the lower Court in a nutshell is for declaration and protection of their right to moveable property and damages flowing from breach thereof. He stated that the relevant laws that clothed the lower Court with jurisdiction include Sections 43 and 44 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Article 14 of the African Charter on peoples and Human Rights Cap 10. He relied on the case of NUT VS COSST (2006) ALL FWLR (Pt. 295) 656 at 659 and ABACHA VS FAWEHINMI (2000) FWLR (Pt.4) 553 at 551. He relied on the Preamble to the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules 2009, and Order 11 Rule 1 thereof.
That the procedure adopted by the respondents is in conformity with the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Rules 2009 and that the Respondents were also entitled to approach the Court vide Originating Summons. The Learned Counsel then engaged himself in what he called the analysis of the Argument proffered by the Appellants Learned Counsel which analysis dwelt principally on the merit of the case. This court is only called upon by the issues under consideration and an issue raised by Respondents to consider whether the lower court had jurisdiction to have entertained the Respondents case through enforcement of Fundamental Rights Procedure Rules 2009. I am therefore concerned with submissions relevant to the issues raised for consideration.
The Learned Counsel submitted that the Respondents case at the trial Court was that the Appellants invaded their land by force and occupied same by conquest in disregard to municipal law, Section 44 (1) of the 1999 Constitution and Section 28 of the Land Use Act and Article 14 of the African Charter on Human and people Right cap 10 LFN 1990. That the Respondents were not asking for a declaration of title against the State Government. That what the Respondents simply asked for was a declaration and protection of their right to immovable property guaranteed them under Section 44(1) of the Constitution. The Learned Counsel to the Respondent stated that they agreed it is the claimed of a Plaintiff that determine jurisdiction of the Court. That the Respondent’s case was that the land was never acquired by the Government. That the Appellants failed to exhibit necessary documents showing Notices of Acquisition and the purposes for which the land was acquired, service of same on the Respondents and the receipts of compensation paid. That these left the Court below without any option than to enter judgment in favour of Respondents. Respondents referred elaborately to the Affidavits evidence before the court. That the argument of Appellants that they have been on the land for 15 years is of no moment. That a trespasser remains forever a trespasser. That the owner was not bound to sue a trespasser immediately. He cited the case of OKIBO VS OBIONU (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt. 365) 568 at 573. That by Order 11 Rule 1 of the Fundamental Right (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009 an application for enforcement of Fundamental Rights are not affected by any statute of Limitation.
He submitted that the Respondents have the right of election to choose procedure for coming to Court.

In reply to the Respondents’ submissions the Appellants filed Appellants Reply Brief wherein they stated that ground 3 and 4 of the Appellants’ Appeal as well as issue 3 are competent contrary to the Respondents submission. The Appellants drew attention to page 52 of the record and the decision of the lower Court.
That the reasoning of the lower Court on page 52 of the record is not obiter and that appellants are entitled to appeal on it. That the said grounds of appeal and the issues raised therefrom are traceable to the judgment of lower Court.
Now the Respondents had contended that grounds 3 and 4 of the Notice of Appeal filed by the Appellant as well as issue 3 formulated therefrom are all incompetent in that they do not relate to the ratio of the judgment or the real decision in the judgment appealed against.

The law is also inviolate that issues formulated for determination in an appeal must be tied to a competent or viable ground of appeal UNITY BANK PLC & ANOR. VS BOURI (2008) S 2-3 SC (Pt.11) 1 and UGO V. OBIEKWE (1989) 2 SC (Pt. 11) 41.

I have reproduced Appellants’ grounds of appeal with their particulars in this judgment. I have also read through the issues formulated especially issue 3 and I am of the view that the grounds of appeal filed by the appellants are all competent as they flow from the ratio and judgment of the trial Court. I am also of the view that upon calm perusal of the issues formulated particularly Issue 3, they all pertained to competent grounds of appeal. The complaints of the Respondents against grounds 3 and 4 of the appeal and issue relating thereto are unfounded and are hereby dismissed.

The law needs no restatement and it is well settled long ago that no matter how well or brilliantly conducted, a proceeding will be a complete nullity and stupendous waste of valuable time if a Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain or to adjudicate on the suit and subject matter of the action before it.
I call in aid the case of CHIEF DANIEL OLOBA vs. ISAAC OLUBODUN AKEREJA (1988) 3 NWLR (PART 84) 508 at 520 C – E per Obaseki JSC who said:
“The issue of jurisdiction is very fundamental as it goes to the competence of the court or tribunal. If a court or tribunal is not competent to entertain a matter or claim or suit, it is a waste of valuable time for the court to embark on the hearing and determination of the suit, matter or claim. It is therefore an exhibition of wisdom to have the issue of jurisdiction or competence determined before embarking on the hearing and determination of the substantive matter. The issue of jurisdiction being a fundamental issue it can be raised at any stage of the proceedings in the court of first instance or in the appeal courts.”
I will also quote with gratitude the view of one of our greatest jurists, Honourable Justice Kayode Eso JSC (Rtd) on jurisdiction in the case of A. G. Lagos State vs. The Hon. Justice L. J. Dosunmu (1989) 3 NWLR(PART 111) 552 at 6O9 C where he had this to say:
“It is futile to set down issues, deliberate on the evidence led, resolve points of law raised if the court that is seized of the matter is devoid of jurisdiction. The substratum of a court is no doubt – jurisdiction without it the “labourers” therein, that is both litigants, and counsel on the one hand and the Judge on the other hand, labour in vain. And so, the defendants even at the trial court, by way of motion, challenged the jurisdiction of the court.”

It is the contention of the Appellants that the suit of the Respondents is not in conformity with the fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009 and that the cause of action is outside the province of chapter IV of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.

The Respondents strongly contended that their suit or action is covered by sections 43 and 44(1) of the 1999 Constitution and Article 14 of the African Chamber on peoples and Human Rights (caps 10) LFN 2004, as they posited that those provisions of the 1999 Constitution gave jurisdiction to the trial court to adjudicate on their suit as a suit bordering on enforcement of their fundamental human rights and that the procedure contained in the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009 is applicable and governed their suit.

It is the law that it is the claim before the court that has to be looked at or examined in order to ascertain whether it comes within the jurisdiction conferred on the particular court by the Constitution or by a statute. See ADEYEMI & ORS VS. OPEYORI (1976) 9 – 10 SC 31 at 51.

It is also trite that where a person alleges that his Fundamental Right(s) as enshrined in the Constitution has been, is being or is likely to be contravened in any state, the alleged breach of his Fundamental Right must be the trunk or pivot in his application in order to vest jurisdiction in the Court for enforcement otherwise the court will lack jurisdiction. In other words where the violation of the alleged right is merely incidental or ancillary to the principal claim or relief it will be improper and preposterous to address such action as one for enforcement of a Fundamental Right.
This Court must therefore examine the reliefs sought herein, the ground upon which they are predicated and the facts relied upon to found the action. See SEA TRUCKS NIGERIA LTD vs. PANYA ANIGBORO (2001) 2 NWLR (PART 696) 159 at 179 C – H per Karibi-whyte JSC who held:
“The correct approach in a claim for the enforcement of fundamental rights is to examine the relief sought, the grounds for such relief, and the facts relied upon.
Where the facts relied upon disclose a breach of the fundamental right of the applicant as the basis of the claim, there is here a redress through the enforcement of such rights through the fundamental rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 1979,
However, where the alleged breach of right is ancillary or incidental to the main grievance or compliant, it is incompetent to proceed under the rules. This is because the right, if any, violated, is not synonymous with the substantive claim which is the subject matter of the action. Enforcement of the right per se cannot resolve the substantive claim which is any case different.

I have at the outset reproduced the reliefs sought and the grounds for them as couched and contained in the Respondents’ motion on Notice at the trial court. I have also reproduced all the Affidavits filed for and against the motion on Notice by Respondents to enforce their Fundamental Rights.

I have calmly examined the five reliefs which the Respondents as Applicants claimed at the trial court. By relief 1, the Respondents are claiming to be entitled to all that piece or parcel of land traditionally called INYAM measuring about 10 hectares lying and situate at Ndagbo – Eluoma Uzuakoli Abia State and that the court should declare that the appropriation of the said land by 1st and 2nd Respondents now (Appellants) to private individuals is illegal, unlawful unconstitutional and hence null and void.
Appropriation of another person’s landed property means handing over of possession of a landed property when used in the context of landed properties. See Black’s Law Dictionary 9th Edition where Appropriation is defined as:
“The exercise of control over property; a taking of possession”
The Respondents as Applicants also sought for injunction and claimed N100,000,000.00 for what they described as “infraction of the Applicants Fundamental Right to their said property”

I am of the settled view that the claims of the Respondents at the lower court are tied to claim in statutory/customary Rights of Occupancy to the land described in the reliefs sought from the trial court, the reliefs sought do not amount to invasion of the rights of any of the Respondents.
The Suit is designed as a specious gamble on their part to obtain statutory/customary right of occupancy over the 10 hectares of land, they are claiming vide a mode or procedure that is not available to them and alien under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009.
All the principal reliefs being claimed by Respondents are clearly out of the purview of Enforcement of Fundamental Human Rights. It is glaring that the Respondents had taken the wrong steps and procedure while purporting to vindicate their rights vide fundamental Enforcement Procedure Rules 2009 vindicate when their claims have nothing to do with such rights. What is more they are claiming the land as Community Property. They instituted the action
“FOR THEMSELVES AND AS REPRESENTATIVES OF NDAGBO ELUAMA COMMUNITY UZUAKOLI”.

A close examination of the Affidavit in support of the Application and their further Affidavit bear testimony that the Respondents’ claims are for declaration to Right of Occupancy and injunction which no doubt is being sought to restrain trespass to land. These types of reliefs must be sought in an action commenced of writ of summons as prescribed and stipulated in the Abia State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules.
The law is settled that where a statute or Rules are put in place for compliance for institution or commencement of an action or proceedings, the method mode or procedure prescribed must be religiously followed by a claimant/claimants in approaching the court for redress otherwise the action will be incompetent and will consequently robs the court of jurisdiction, the action will be deemed to have commenced without following the due process of law. See AGIP NIGERIA LTD VS. AGIP PETRO INTERNATIONAL & ORS (2010) 5 NWLR (PART 1187) 348 at 419 H to 420 A Per ADEKEYE JSC who held
“More important is that where a statute or rule of Court provides for a procedure for the commencement of an action, failure to follow that procedure renders any suit commenced otherwise incompetent.
In the case of Obasanjo Vs. Yusuf (2004) 9 NWLR (PT. 877) PG. 144 at PAGE 221, the court decided that:
“It is elementary law that a plaintiff in the commencement of an action, must comply strictly with the provisions of the enabling law. He cannot go outside the enabling law for redress.”

The Abia State High Court (trial court) has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on all the reliefs sought on the Respondents motion on Notice dated 12th day of November, 2010 and filed on 15th day of November 2010. It was/is an exercise in futility. The reliefs are not at all cognizable under the provisions of Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009. The alleged breaches of Fundamental Rights complained of are not the principal reliefs in the application or motion the Respondents filed. The action was improperly constituted as action for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
“See the case of A. U. Tukur Vs. The Government of Gongola State & Ors. (1997) 6 NWLR (PART 510) at 576 H to 577 A – F per Ogundare J.S.C. who read the leading judgment thus:
“The primary complaint of the Appellant in the whole case was his deposition as the emir of Muri; the alleged breaches of his fundamental rights to fair hearing, liberty and freedom of movement were merely accessory to his primary complaint. The proceedings by way of the fundamental rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules are inappropriate, in the circumstances. As Adio, J.S.C. put it in Borno Radio Television Corporation Vs. Basil Egbuonu (Supra) at page 90, and quite rightly in my view;
“The competence of a court to exercise jurisdiction in relation to an action before it depends on certain conditions which Bairamian, F.J., (as he then was) set out in Madukolu & Ors. Vs. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341; (1962) 1 ALL NLR 587t at P. 595.
His Lordship stated, inter alia, as follows:
“Before dismissing those portions of the record, I shall make some observations on jurisdiction and the competence of a court. Put briefly, court is competent when:
(1) It is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualifications of the members of the bench, and no member is disqualified for one reason or another; and
(2) The subject matter of the case is within jurisdiction, and there is no feature in the case which prevents the court from exercising its jurisdiction; and
(3) The case comes before the court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfilment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction.”
The combined effect of the second and third conditions mentioned above is that when the main or principal claim in an application is not the enforcement or securing the enforcement of a fundamental right, the court has no jurisdiction to entertain if under fundamental rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 1979. That is the position in the case of the present application of the respondent. The Respondent’s application is not properly before the court.”
(Italics are mine) The Appellant herein ought to have come by way of a writ of summons, not only in respect of reliefs 1 and 2 but also in respect of the other reliefs as well.”
See also the holding of Belgore JSC later CJN on page 578 D – E of the report where he said:
“This matter was taken to the trial court on a wrong vehicle, instead of a writ of summons designed for initiating an action; it was started with a motion on notice under Fundamental Rights Procedure under the constitution. The real crux of the complaint in the trial court, however, is as to whether the Plaintiff was lawfully deposed as the Emir of Muri, but this was cloaked under fundamental rights. Since the main procedural approach at the trial court was incompetent, no relief could flow from it. It is impossible to separate the main issues, had the Plaintiff initiated the action by writ of summons perhaps the story would have been different, better still if he had brought the two actions – one under fundamental rights and another under normal writ of summons. All the breaches of fundamental rights emanated from the Plaintiff deposition as an Emir it would have been right for him to challenge the legality if the deposition via writ of summons. Ancillary to his depositions are the issues of his freedom of movement and liberty.”

The Supreme Court of this great country restated or reiterated the position in the case of Alhaji Tsoho Dan Amale Vs. Sokoto Local Government & ors (2012) 5 NWLR (PART 1292) 181 at 1999 A – H to 200 A – E per Fabiyi, JSC who has this to say:
“Let me state it right away that it is now glaring that a trial court will only have jurisdiction to proceed to enforce a fundamental right of an applicant guaranteed under Chapter IV of the constitution if the main relief discloses a breach of the fundamental right of the applicant. In Sea Trucks Ltd. V. Anigboro (Supra) at page 178 paras. G-H, Karibi-Whyte, JSC pronounced as follows:
“The correct approach in a claim for the enforcement of fundamental rights is to examine the relief sought, the grounds for such relief, and the facts relied upon. Where the facts relied upon disclosed a breach of the fundamental right of the applicant as the basis of the claim, there is here a redress through the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement procedure) Rules 1979.
However, where the alleged breach of right is ancillary or incidental to the main grievance or complaint, it is incompetent to proceed under the rules. This is because the right, if any, violated, is not synonymous with the substantive claim which is the subject matter of the action.
Enforcement of the right per se cannot resolve the substantive claim which is in any case different.”
In University of Ilorin v. Oluwadare (supra) at pages 770 – 771, this court per Mohammed, JSC stated as follows:
“These reliefs sought by the Respondent as applicant before the trial Federal High Court centered principally on his expulsion from the University and the urge for his readmission. The law in relation to the claim for the enforcement of fundamental rights is trite. It is to the effect that the enforcement of fundamental rights or securing the enforcement thereof, must form the basis of the Appellant’s claim as presented to the court and not merely as an accessory claim. In other words, where the main or principal claim is not enforcement or securing the enforcement of fundamental rights, the jurisdiction of the court cannot be properly exercised, because it will then be incompetent.”

Again, in Gafar v. The Govt. of Kwara State and 2 Ors. (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1024) 375 at page 398 paras. E-G, this court also pronounced per Mohammed, JSC as follows:
“I have earlier in this judgment reproduced the 10 reliefs sought by the Appellant in his application brought under section 42(1) of the 1979 Constitution and Order 1 rule 2 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 1979. It is the law as decided by the court in a long line of cases on the subject that when an application is brought under the rule, a condition precedent to the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction is that the enforcement of fundamental rights or the securing of the enforcement thereof should be the main claim and not an accessory claim. That where the main or principal claim is not the enforcement or securing the enforcement of a fundamental right, the jurisdiction of the court cannot be properly exercised and it will be incompetent.
This Court maintained the same position in the cases of the Governor of Kogi State v. Yakubu (2001) FWLR (Pt. 43) 359 at 306, (2001) 6 NWLR (Pt.710) 521; W.A.E.C v. Adeyanju (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 428) 206 at 225, (2008) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1092) 270 and Tukur v. Govt. Of Gongola State (supra).”

The facts of Amale v. Sokoto Local Government as stated in the report are as follows:
The Appellant’s land and movable properties situate at Kofer Kade, Kama Market in Sokoto metropolis were compulsorily acquired by the then Military Governor of Sokoto State.
The Appellant felt his fundamental right was breached by the act of the Governor. So, the Appellant sought and was granted leave to enforce his fundamental right by the High Court.
Subsequently, the Appellant filed a motion on notice by which he sought in the main, a declaration that the acquisition of his properties was in breach of his fundamental rights, illegal, unconstitutional, null and void. He also sought orders of injunction and an award of damages.
The trial Court heard the Appellant’s application and granted the reliefs sought by the Appellant.
The Respondents were dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, and appealed to the court of Appeal. On the day the Respondents’ appeal came up for hearing, the Respondents, counsel were absent from court. The court of Appeal’ on its own motion, asked the Appellant’s counsel to address it on whether or not the Appellant’s suit at the trial court could be commenced under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules. The Appellant’s counsel addressed the Court of Appeal on the issue raised.
Thereafter, the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment. It found that the Appellant’s land was acquired for the purpose of expanding the Cattle (Kara) Market by the Sokoto Local Government. The court also held that the Appellant’s action was a claim in respect of title to land and compulsory acquisition, and that it was improperly commenced under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the Respondents’ appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial court.
The Appellant was not happy with the decision of the court of Appeal and appealed to the Supreme Court.
The facts of the case is quite similar to the Respondent claims in this suit. It is therefore also apposite to refer to pages 201 B-H and 202 A of Amale v. Sokoto Local Government supra where Fabiyi, JSC also said:
“Section 40 (1) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979, which is applicable, provides as follows:
“40-(1) No movable property or any interest in an immovable property shall be taken possession of compulsorily and no right over or interest in any such property shall be acquired compulsorily in any part of Nigeria except in the manner and for the purposes prescribed by a law that; among other things –
(a) Requires the prompt payment of compensation therefore; and
(b) Gives to any person claiming such compensation a right of access for the determination of his interest in the property and the amount of compensation to a court of law or tribunal or body having jurisdiction in that part of Nigeria.”
There is no doubt that the action of the Respondents is permitted by the Land Use Act which is inter vires the Constitution. Nothing lawful could be held as illegal or unconstitutional. I agree with the court below that the revocation of the Appellant’s statutory right of occupancy, being legal, could not constitute encroachment on his fundamental right.

It is the law that the Appellant’s claim should determine the nature of the suit and a ‘fortiori’ its competence. See Adeyemi v. Opeyori (1976) 9-10 SC 31. The claim of the appellant as disclosed in his suit and the affidavit in support did not relate to one breaching his fundamental right. It is for claim for declaration of title to his statutory right of occupancy or for compensation for unexhausted development on the land which should not be brought under the Fundamental rights (Enforcement procedure) Rules. I agree that for this reason, the appellant’s suit is incompetent as the main claims have nothing to do with breach or threatened breach of right to fair hearing. See Sea Trucks (Nig) Ltd v. Anigboro (supra); Tukur v. Govt. of Gongola State (supra) and Egbuonu v. Borno Radio & Television Corporation (1997) 12 NWLR (Pt. 531) 29 at 40 – 41.

At this point, I should say it that I resolve issue 1 against the appellant and in favour of the respondents.”
I therefore resolve issues 1 and 2 in favour of the Appellants.
ISSUE 3
WHETHER THE APPLICANTS CAN UNDER THE FUNDAMENTAL ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE RULES 2009 RAISE THE ISSUE OF NON COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAND USE ACT, 1978 AND NON PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION OVER GOVERNMENT ACQUIRED LAND BUILT UP LAND
In view of my resolution of Issues, 1 and 2, in favour of the Appellants issue 3 is also resolved in favour of the Appellants based on the same reasoning and conclusion under issues 1 and 2 herein.
The appeal of the 3rd and 4th Appellants is meritorious and it is hereby allowed. The judgment of Abia state High Court, Uzuakoli Division contained in the judgment of HON. JUSTICE J. E. ADIELE delivered on day of June, 2011 is hereby set aside. The Respondents action in suit No. HUZ/M35/2010 filed on 15th day November, 2010 at the said Court is hereby struck out for lack of jurisdiction on the part of the High Court of Abia State, Uzuakoli Judicial Division. The Respondents shall pay costs assessed at N30,000.00 (Thirty Thousand Naira) to the 3rd and 4th Appellants.

UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, J.C.A.: I agree.

PHILOMENA MBUA EKPE, J.C.A.: I agree.

Appearances

Appellants’ Counsel Absent. For Appellant

AND

Nnamdi Okorie Esq. For Respondent