CASE TITLE: BAWA v. ALI (2024) LPELR-62314(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 7TH JUNE, 2024
PRACTICE AREA: LANDLORD AND TENANT
LEAD JUDGMENT: UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on Recovery of Premises.
FACTS:
This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court of Yobe State sitting in Yobe delivered on 30th September 2022.
The provenance of this matter is the contest for the possession of and/or recovery of premises situate at Sarkin Zango Murtala, Lawan Musa Ward, Gashua, Yobe State. The Respondent herein purchased the property from the Appellant’s siblings and then issued statutory notices on the Appellant who was in possession of the property to deliver up possession to him. The Appellant failed to deliver up possession, consequent upon which the Respondent instituted proceedings before the District Court of Yobe State claiming for an order for vacant possession of the premises. The matter was subjected to a full dressed plenary hearing at the District Court with testimonial and documentary evidence adduced by the parties. The District Court in its judgment held that the Respondent herein did not have the locus standi to maintain the action and dismissed the same. Having so decided on locus standi, the District Court did not go further to evaluate the evidence with a view to ascertaining if on the merits the Respondent was entitled to the reliefs sought.
The Respondent, being dissatisfied with the decision of the District Court appealed against the same to the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court of Yobe State. In its judgment, the trial Court upheld the locus standi of the Respondent to maintain the action and after evaluating the evidence adduced at the trial, the trial Court set aside the decision of the District Court and entered judgment in favour of the Respondent and ordered that the Appellant herein vacate the property forthwith.
The tide having so turned, the Appellant, being dissatisfied, appealed to the Court of Appeal.
ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:
The appeal was determined based on the following issues:
1. Whether or not having regard to the record of proceeding of the lower Court the respondent has locus standi to institute an action against the appellant for a recovery of premises whereas he was neither party to the sales transactions nor was he his tenant.
2. Whether or not the lower Court was right when it fail to consider the privity of contract between the appellant and the respondent.
3. Whether or not having regards to the case at hand there is a tenancy agreement between the appellant and the respondent to warrant the respondent issue notice to quit and notice of owner’s intention to apply and recover possession.
4. Whether or not having regards to the testimonies of PW2 and PW3 who sold the property of the appellant and DW2 long ago can validly transfer good title to the respondent by way of sell [sale].
5. Whether or not failure of the lower Court to evaluate the testimonies of the witnesses as contained in the record of proceeding has occasion[ed] miscarriage of justice to the appellant.”
DECISION/HELD:
In the final analysis, the appeal was dismissed.
RATIOS:
- ACTION- LOCUS STANDI: Meaning of locus standi; What a party must show to establish locus standi
- ACTION- CAUSE(S) OF ACTION: Principles applicable to cause of action
- APPEAL- INTERFERENCE WITH EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE: Circumstance(s) when an appellate Court will interfere with evaluation of evidence made by a trial Court
- APPEAL- INTERFERENCE WITH FINDING(S) OF FACT(S): Instance(s) when an appellate Court will not interfere with findings of fact of a lower Court
- LANDLORD AND TENANT- RECOVERY OF PREMISES: Whether a landlord can resort to self-help to recover possession of premises
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
