Who Has the Power to Issue Statutory Right of Occupancy in The Federal Capital Territory?

CASE TITLE: TOZHEWO & ORS v. WINNING CLAUSE LTD & ANOR (2025) LPELR-80343(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 15TH FEBRUARY, 2025
PRACTICE AREA: LAND LAW
LEAD JUDGMENT: PETER CHUDI OBIORAH, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on land law.

FACTS:

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Federal Capital Territory Abuja delivered on the 12th day of March, 2021 by Honourable Justice A. O. Ebong.

The 1st Respondent, as plaintiff, sued the Appellants as the defendants at the lower Court. The 2nd Respondent was the 10th defendant in the suit. The suit is a land matter and the subject matter is Plot 67 Kafe District Abuja. The claim of the 1st Respondent over the land was based on allocation of same by the 2nd Respondent for development under the Mass Housing Development Programme. On the other hand, the Appellants’ counterclaim is hinged on the basis that they are the original inhabitants of the land.

By the further, further amended statement of claim, the 1st Respondent claimed against the defendants jointly and severally as follows:

1. A declaration that the defendants’ claim over plot 67 Kafe District FCT or any part thereof is in violation of Sections 297 and 302 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and Section 1(3) of the FCT Act 1976 and therefore unconstitutional, illegal and unlawful.

2. A declaration that the plaintiff’s leasehold interest over Plot 67 Kafe District, Abuja based on the development lease/contract she entered with the Honourable Minister of the FCT is valid and subsisting.

3. A declaration that the occupation of a part of the said plot 67 Kafe District Abuja by the defendants and their activities thereon constitutes a trespass.

4. N600,000,000 (Six Hundred Million Naira) damages for trespass against the 1st – 9th defendants.

5. An order of specific performance compelling the 10th defendant to observe and fulfill the terms of the Development Lease Agreement he entered into with the plaintiff.

6. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants whether by themselves, their agents, workmen, privies etc. from entering, remaining/occupying, trespassing, carrying out any form of activities including harassing and intimidating the plaintiff’s workers, tenants and visitors on the entire plot 67 Kafe District, Abuja or any part thereof.

7. N15,000,000.00 (Fifteen Million Naira) only being the cost of this action.

8. 10% interest on the above claimed sums from the date of judgment till final liquidation.

The Appellants, as the 1st – 9th defendants, incorporated a counter claim in their further, further amended statement of defence and sought the following reliefs.

1. A declaration that the document dated the 17th March 2011 purportedly issued by the 10th defendant/2nd defendant to counter claim, to the Plaintiff/1st defendant to counterclaim with the accompanied (sic) Lease Agreement vesting plot 67 Kafe District on the plaintiff/1st defendant to counter claim is null and void.

2. An order on the plaintiff/1st defendant to counter- claim and the 10th defendant/2nd defendant to counter claim not to disturb the quiet possessions, residences and developments of the counterclaimants situate at plot 67 Kafe District Federal Capital Territory Abuja or/and Kuchbedna Village Abuja Municipal Area Council, Abuja having integrated, lached and acquiesced thereto.

3. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff/1st defendant to counter-claim and 10th defendant/2nd defendant to counter claim, their servants, agents, privies or/and any authority, howsoever called, from causing or taking steps to eject, remove and/or demolish the buildings of the counterclaimants, situate at Kuchbedna Village, Abuja, without first making available to them alternative habitable residence or alternative place/piece of land to enable them erect residential apartments, with adequate infrastructure provided.

4. Damages or/exemplary damages in the sum of N500,000,000.00 (Five Hundred million naira) only against the plaintiff/1st defendant to counterclaim and 10th defendant/2nd defendant.

5. The cost of this counterclaim.

At the end of the trial, the lower Court granted the 1st Respondent’s claim and dismissed the counterclaim of the Appellants as an abuse of Court process.

Dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Court of Appeal.

ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:

In determination of the appeal, the Court adopted the 2nd issue raised by the 1st Respondent viz:

“Whether or not the decision of the lower Court is not consistent with the evidence led at the trial.”

DECISION/HELD:

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal.

RATIOS:

• CONTRACT- BINDING CONTRACT: What constitutes a binding contract
• CONTRACT- PRIVITY OF CONTRACT: Whether a third party can enforce terms of a contract between two parties
• EVIDENCE- DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: Effect of failure to comply with a subpoena to produce a document
• EVIDENCE- PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND: Ways of proving title/ownership of land/house
• EVIDENCE- TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE/HISTORY: Duty of a party relying on traditional history
• LAND LAW- STATUTORY RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY: Who has the power to issue statutory right of occupancy in the Federal Capital Territory

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol