CASE TITLE: BULO v. MUMMUNAI INTEGRATED SERVICES LTD & ORS (2025) LPELR-82881(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 9TH JANUARY, 2026
PRACTICE AREA: LAND LAW
LEAD JUDGMENT: BOLOUKUROMO MOSES UGO, J.C.A.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on partitioning a family property.
FACTS:
This appeal is from the judgment of the High Court of Kano State of the 2nd day of November 2023 as was rendered by Usman Na’abba J.
The Appellant and his co-plaintiff (now respondent to his appeal) claimed jointly from the High Court of Kano State in a joint statement of claim as follows, among others:
- A Declaration of that the plaintiffs and their co-heirs are the rightful and bona fide owners of farmland at Daginawa village in Dawakin Kudu Local Government Area, covered by Certificate of Occupancy No. CON/COM/83/103 and Right of Occupancy Number CON/AG/2008/42, being the beneficiaries of the estate of Bako Mai Bulo and Ibrahim Dandi, respectively, the initial owners and holders of rights in the said farmlands.
- The Declaration of that the purported allocation of a portion of the plaintiff’s respective farmlands situated at Daginawa village in the Dawakin Kudu Local Government Area of Kano State in favor of the 2nd Defendant on the existing right of the plaintiffs is unlawful, illegal, and therefore null and void ab initio.
- An order declaring the act of the second defendant of encroaching on the plaintiffs’ respective farmlands, digging foundations thereon and constructing structures without the plaintiffs’ consent and permission as an act of trespass and therefore unlawful and illegal.
- An order nullifying the subsequent allocation of a portion of the plaintiff’s farmland in favor of the second defendant and cancelling any purported allocation letters, letters of grant and/or certificates of occupancy issued to the second defendant.
The 1st and 2nd respondents entered separate defences to the suit along with counterclaims. In their said separate defences, the 1st and 2nd respondents, while admitting that the Kano State Government allotted land belonging to it in Daginawa village to the 2nd respondent for the development of a public housing project, joined issues with appellant and his co-plaintiff by expressly denying encroaching on, allotting, or being allotted any of the portions of land claimed by appellant and his co-plaintiff.
Appellant and his co-plaintiff responded to these defences/counterclaims by filing a 40-paragraph reply as well as Defence to the two counterclaims. In those processes, they asserted that the allocation made by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent was unlawful, invalid, null and void ab initio, as it was done on their existing rights.
ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:
The Court considered the merits of the application.
DECISION/HELD:
In the final analysis, the appeal was dismissed.
RATIOS:
• ACTION- REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY: Whether an action can be commenced in a representative capacity on behalf of an already partitioned family property
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- ABUSE OF COURT/JUDICIAL PROCESS(ES): Circumstances where an appeal will be held to be an abuse of court process
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- ABUSE OF COURT/JUDICIAL PROCESS(ES): Duty of Court once it is satisfied that an action is an abuse of judicial process
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
