IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT APO BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP, HON. JUSTICE U. P.

Transcription

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT APO BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP, HON. JUSTICE U. P. KEKEMEKE SUIT NO: FCT/HC/CV/1499/13 COURT CLERK: JOSEPH BALAMI ISHAKU DATED 15/07/13 BETWEEN: 1. PETER OGBECHE 2. EMMANUEL IJAKPA PLAINTIFFS/APPLICANTS AND 1. HON. MINISTER, FED. CAP. TERRITORY 2. FED. CAP. DEV. AUTHORITY 3. CHAIRMAN, AD-HOC COMMITTEE DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS ON SALE OF FEDERAL GOVT. HOUSES. 4. ALKALI MOHAMMED J U D G M E N T By a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim dated and filed on the 10 th day of May 2011, the Plaintiff s claims against the Defendants jointly and severally as follows: 1. A Declaration that the ejection of the Plaintiffs with their personal belongings by the Defendants from the Property situate at Plot 57, Flat 3, Road D Federal Housing Authority, Old Karu Road, Karu FCT, Abuja is unlawful, Illegal, unconstitutional, a trespass on the property in which the 1 st Plaintiff is the subsisting owner. 2. An Order for N30,000,000 for General damages for trespass, illegal ejection and infringement of the Plaintiff s right. 3. Five Million Naira only as Special Damages for Financial loss for the period the illegal ejection was subsisting. 1

2 The Writ of Summons, Statement of Claim and all other processes were served on the Defendants. The 1 st -3 rd Defendants reacted by filing a Statement of Defence dated the 10 th day of November 2011 but filed on the 17 th. The 4 th Defendant also reacted by filing a Statement of Defence and Counterclaim dated 31/10/11. On the 23 rd day of February 2012, the Court ordered parties to file settlement of Issues upon the conclusion of pleadings. The Plaintiffs filed their issues for trial on the 16/03/12. It contains the following: 1. Whether the Plaintiffs were lawful occupants of flat 3 Plot 57 Road D Site, Karu before they were forcefully ejected by the Defendants and if yes. 2. Whether such ejection of Plaintiffs from Flat 3 Plot 57 road D FHA Karu was lawfully and legally done, etc. The issues settled by Plaintiffs in their Settlement of Issues ought to be issues raised for trial and not issues for determination raised after the conclusion of evidence. There is a difference between settlement of issues i.e, issues for trial upon which evidence is expected to be led as opposed to issues raised based on evidence already given at the conclusion of trial. The 1 st -2 nd Defendants Counsel also filed issues for trial dated 23 rd but filed on the 26 th. The issues raised follow the same pattern as that of the Plaintiffs. They are contained on the face of the issues filed. The 4 th Defendant at the point of adopting the issues for trial said he was about filing same. His issues are not in the Court s file. The Court pursuant to Order 33(1) of the High Court of the FCT (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 adjourned for hearing. The Plaintiff opened his case and called two witnesses in proof of same. The 1 st Plaintiffs witness is one Peter Ogbeche. He stated orally that he is an ICT Practitioner. That he lives at Flat 3 Road D57 Federal Housing Authority, Karu Road, Karu. He said he filed 2

3 a Written Witness Statement on Oath dated 10/05/11. He adopted same as his oral testimony. In the said Witness Statement on Oath, he deposed as follows: 6. That the property at Plot 57, Flat 3 Road D, FHA, Old Karu Road, Karu FCT Abuja is owned by my brother Emmanuel Ogar Ijakpa and I have been living in the property with my brother s family and mine. 7. That on the 10 th day of February 2011 about the hour of 6.00 p.m while I was still in the office at Nyanya Abuja, I received a phone call from my wife who informed me that some persons were carrying out eviction. 8. That the 4 th Defendant a co-respondent together with agents of the 1 st 3 rd Defendants accompanied by three armed Policemen were evicting occupants from his premises. 9. That on receiving this information, I was surprised, considering the fact that my brother (the 2 nd Plaintiff) has a pending suit before the High Court FCT, Abuja where his title to the property is to be determined and to which the 1 st 3 rd Defendants are Respondents. 10. That I hurried down to the premises and on getting home, I discovered the information to be true, that the neighbour who occupies the three bedroom flat situate at Plot 57 Flat 3, Road D, FHA, Old Karu Road Karu FCT Abuja (the 4 th Defendant) was accompanied by 3 armed Policemen along with agents of the 1 st 3 rd Defendants directing them on Flats the ejection should be carried out. 11. That I was forcefully thrown out with all my personal belongings together with my immediate family and six members. 12. That I demanded to know from the Policemen on which instructions and authorization the ejection, were being carried out and the reasons for such forceful ejection, I was told by one of the armed Policemen (PC Danjuma) not to interfere with the ejection process because they were authorized to do so by the Defendants while the agent of the 1 st 3 rd Defendants told me to go to their office for answers to any question I may have. 13. That the 4 th Defendant in collaboration with the Police intimidated and traumatized my children by the manner of ejection as the children who were just back from school and about having supper were suddenly stopped and hauled out of the apartment by the 4 th Defendant and agents of the 1 st 3 rd Defendant. 3

4 14. That the Defendants were adamant in giving any reason behind the eviction process being carried out and further succeeded in throwing all my personal belongings out of the apartment and premises while I was prevented from any form of interference by the armed Policemen. 15. That all my personal effects, valuables and household belongings were laying scattered recklessly outside the premises (photographs taken displaying the items (was taken). 16. That there was no Court Order authorizing the Defendants to evict me and my family or any occupant whomsoever from the property situate at Plot 57, Flat 3 Road D, Federal Housing Authority, Old Karu FCT, Abuja. 17. That my eviction from the apartment was unlawful and gross trespass on my personal belongings. 18. That the 1 st 3 rd Defendants are parties to the pending suit and had adequate knowledge and information that the property was in dispute and they had filed all necessary documents before the High Court pertaining to the one bedroom apartment I was ejected from. 19. That the pending suit before the Honourable High Court 9, Maitama FCT, Abuja to which the 1 st 3 rd Defendants are Respondents in the matter was instituted amongst others to determine my brother s (Emmanuel Ogar Ijakpa) the Plaintiff s title to the property and also as to whether the contract of sale in respect of the property was valid and subsisting. 20. That prior to the unlawful ejection by the Defendants from the one bedroom apartment, a date had been fixed for the final determination of the suit before the High Court No That a Restorative Order was issued by the High Court restoring 2 nd Plaintiff and family back into possession and occupation of the apartment pending the final determination and judgment of the substantive matter. 22. That at the end of the unlawful ejection exercise, it was already dusk and I had to first ensure the safety of my family by securing temporarily hotel accommodation while our personal belongings lay littered outside the premises at the mercy of vandals, thieves and hoodlums without security whatsoever since we could only pick few clothes needed and without any where else to secure our other valuable items. 23. That on returning to the premises the following day and while taking inventory of my belongings, I discovered that most of my valuables were missing while other personal 4

5 effects and electronic gadgets were broken and damaged as a result of the forceful reckless manner my personal belongings were thrown out of the apartment by the Defendants. 24. That on taking inventory, I discovered that the following items were missing. 1. Two Good news Holy Bibles. 2. Two internet modems. 3. Two Mobile Phones 4. Two laptop Computer 5. DSTV Decoder System with Smart Card Six months valid subscriptions. 6. Generator set 7. All electrical fittings. 8. Electronic DVD Player. 9. Car Spare keys. 10. Original copy of Certificate of incorporation 11. digital Camera and accessories 12. HP Deskjet colour Printer. 13. Automatic Voltage Regulator. 14. Kitchen installation accessories. 15. Children s Dolls and clothing. 16. Expensive designer perfumes 17. INEC voters Registration Card. 25. That while also taking inventory of valuables, I discovered the following items were broken and damaged. 1. Two table Top computers flat screen computer monitors 3. Plasma flat screen 20 inches T.V. set. 4. Wall fitted partitions. 5. Thermo cool Freezer. 6. Collapsible Dressing Board. 7. Metal Protectors. 8. Standing mirror. 9. Christian Banners. 5

6 10. Poultry farm in which all chicks died while it lasted. 26. That my entire family and I suffered psychological trauma and great embarrassment. 27. That I engaged and paid the services of our lawyer for the claim of Damages and the total cost of instituting this action is N1 Million. Witness claims as per Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim. The witness tendered the following as Exhibits. Exhibits A-A5 four photographs and negatives. Exhibit B Letter dated 11/03/11 addressed to M.D. Abang Odok Ogar and Associates showing missing items. Exhibits C- C1 Receipts dated 22/02/11 and 06/01/11 from Abang Odok Ogar & Co. for N400,000 and N600,000. Under cross-examination by 1 st 3 rd Defendants Counsel, Witness answered as follows: That he is an ICT Practitioner who had not worked with any government establishment or parastatal. That flat 3, FHA, Karu was before now a Federal government property. That 2 nd Plaintiff works for the Federal Government. To a question, he answered that he is married. That they are five. That his brother, 2 nd Plaintiff is also married. Tat 2 nd Plaintiff was on the property on the day of eviction. That he is still there till date. To a question, he answered that he was called on phone on that day that some persons were carrying out eviction. That he met them before the conclusion of the eviction process because other flats were involved. That he identified the 4 th Defendant as one of the persons. That he met a Police Constable PC Danjuma and he informed them that they are from FCDA. That he did not make further enquires. To another question, he answered that there is a Police Post at FCDA. That the eviction took place on the 10/02/11. That before Exhibit B was written, he had already reported to his counsel. That he swore to an Affidavit of loss of properties at the Magistrate Court. He confirmed that he lodged in the Hotel after the eviction. That the name of the Hotel is Zenith guest House, Nyanya. That he paid N5,000 per night. That they are occupying two rooms. That the total bill was N271,700. To a question he answered that the 2 nd plaintiff filed an application for a restorative Order dated 10/02/11. That they packed back on 19/02/11. That he reported the issue of missing property to the Police at Nyanya Police Station. That he has a report to that effect. 6

7 Under cross-examination by the 4 th Defendant s Counsel, he answered as follows: That he is staying with 2 nd Plaintiff who is his brother. That the relief is not the same as the one in Court 9. The 2 nd Plaintiff s witness is the 2 nd Plaintiff Emmanuel Ogar Ijakpa. He stated orally that he lives at Plot 57, Road D, Federal Ministry of Works and Housing, Nyanya Karu. That he is a Civil servant. That on the 10 th day of May 2011 and 8/02/12, he deposed to two separate Statements on Oath. He adopted same as his oral testimony in this case. In the first Witness Statement on Oath, he deposed as follows: 2. That I am a Public servant working with the national Commission for Refugees in the Federal Secretariat, Abuja. 3. That I own the one bedroom Flat at Plot 57, Flat 3, Road D, Federal Housing Authority, Old Karu Road, Karu FCT Abuja and occupy same with my brother the 1 st Plaintiff with members of our immediate family. 4. That on the 10 th day of February 2011 about the hours of 6.00 pm, while on my way back from the office, I was informed by my brother s wife that agents of the 1 st 3 rd Defendants accompanied by the 4 th Defendant and three armed Policemen were forcefully evicting all our properties out of the premises. 5. That the Defendants after evicting a neighbouring flat then subsequently proceeded to my one bedroom apartment and forcefully evicted my family and I out of the apartment we occupied. 6. That the 4 th Defendant was pointing and directing the agents of the 1 st -3 rd Defendants on flats to be evicted and (Plaintiff) I was prevented from any form of interference by the armed Policemen. 7. That I arrived at the apartment and discovered this to be the true position as all our personal items and belongings lay scattered and littered outside the premises. 8. That unlawful eviction was carried out without a Court Order authorizing the Defendants to evict my immediate family and me from the one bedroom apartment. 7

8 9. That I was greatly surprised considering the fact that there is a pending suit before the High Court No. 9 Federal Capital Territory, Abuja to which the 1 st 3 rd Defendants are parties. 10. That the pending suit was to determine amongst other things my title to the property and the matter had been slated for final determination. 11. That 1 st 3 rd Defendants are parties to the pending suit and had adequate knowledge and information that the property was in dispute and had in turn filed all necessary documents before the High Court No.9 pertaining to the one bedroom apartment. 12. That the 1 st -3 rd Defendants threw out my personal belongings in a reckless and carefree manner out of the premises and were mindless whether the properties could get broken and even damaged. 13. That when the eviction was completed, the 1 st Plaintiff and myself had to leave behind our personal belongings outside the premises and seek temporary accommodation elsewhere as it was fast becoming dusk. 14. That I have incurred financial liabilities being payment for temporary accommodation/feeding in the Hotel at Nyanya for 1 st Plaintiff and myself and families of six members for a period of 10 days from the date the unlawful ejection was made to the date the Restorative Order was made and enforced. 15. That I went with the 1 st Plaintiff the following day to take inventory of our personal items and discovered some of the valuables and personal effects have gone missing while others were damaged as a result of the actions of the Defendants. 16. That I was subsequently granted a restorative Court Order reinstating me and our immediate families back into the apartment. 17. That I have suffered great hardship and financial liabilities as a result of the actions of the Defendants before the Restorative Order was made. The 2 nd Plaintiff s witness tendered the following documents as Exhibits. Exhibit D CTC of Writ of Summons between Witness and the Honourable Minister and 2 ors. Exhibit E E2 Receipts No and Waybill of Zenith Guest House. 8

9 Exhibit F Court Order of the Federal Capital Territory High Court dated 10/02/11 issued by Hon. Justice Goodluck. The 2 nd Plaintiff s witness withdrew his Counterclaim, I shall therefore not bother to reproduce the 2 nd Plaintiff s witness Statement on Oath dated 8/02/12 adopted pursuant to the said Counterclaim and the Exhibits G-G7. Under Cross-Examination by the 1 st 3 rd Defendants Counsel, PW2 answered as follows: That he is married and that he lives with his children. That they are five in the family. That as at 10/02/11, he was living at Plot 57 Road D, FHA Nyanya. He answered that when the eviction was carried out, he was yet to come back from the office. The he only came to meet the properties outside. That he was told the identity of the people. That he saw the three Defendants. That the 1 st Plaintiff who got there ahead of him met those who carried out the eviction. That he could not verify the story of his brother because his properties and that of the children were outside. That he was told the identity of the people. That the 1 st Plaintiff is his 1 st cousin who is also married. That they are also five altogether. He confirmed that the hotel he lodged is Zenith Guest Inn. That he lodged there for 10 days including feeding. That he paid a total sum of N371,000. That Exhibit E was made on 19/02/11. That it evidences the deposit paid by him. It is N1.2 Million He answered that he did not state the issue of N1.2 Million because that was not what was expended. To another question, he said the children were away to evening lesson. That his wife was at the Nasarawa State University Keffi. Under cross-examination by the 4 th Defendant s Counsel, witness argues as follows: That he is still occupying the property because he paid for it since To a question, he answered that it was his property. That the issue here is different from the issues in High Court No. 9. That the property is not a boys quarter. That it is a terrace bungalow, which is 4 units of one bedroom. Refers to Exhibit G4. That was the case of the Plaintiffs. The Defendants opened their defence on 17/07/12 and called two witnesses in defence of the claim. The 1 st Defendant s witness is Kaka Samuel Senchi. He stated that he is a staff of 9

10 Federal Capital Development Authority, Legal Services Secretariat on posting to Adhoc Committee on the Sale of Federal Government Houses FCTA, Abuja. That he remembers deposing to a Witness Statement on Oath dated 17/11/11. He adopts same as his oral testimony. In the said written Statement on Oath, he deposes as follows: 4. That the 1 st Plaintiff is a person unknown as far as the 1 st 3 rd Defendants are concerned and cannot validly make any claims against the said Defendants. 5. That I know as a fact that pursuant to release of Guidelines on Sale of Federal Government Houses in Abuja, the 4 th Defendant offered to buy Plot 57, Road D with appurtenances at FHA Estate, Karu, Abuja and same was sold to him. 6. That the said property has an appurtenance of boys Quarters which was offered in error to the 2 nd Plaintiff for sale. 7. That the said error arose as a result of discrepancies in the actual property numbering. 8. That upon discovery of the error stated above, the 1 st 3 rd Defendant wrote a withdrawal offer letter to the 2 nd Plaintiff in March That the withdrawal was upon the ground that the property being an appurtenance of the main building, the 4 th Defendant is entitled to same. 10. That the 4 th Defendant has since made some payment for the property hence the need to take full possession of the property. 11. That the 2 nd Plaintiff was duly notified and notice to quit thereof given to him. 12. That the Plaintiff instead of vacating the premises chose to file a suit against the Defendants in suit no. CV/628/08 Challenging the administrative decision of the 1 st -3 rd Defendants. 13. That the said suit is yet to be determined at the time of filing this defence. 14. That the 1 st -3 rd Defendants first got hint of the alleged eviction of the Plaintiffs when the Plaintiffs served their Lawyers with a Motion for mandatory interlocutory injunction. 15. That the mandatory interlocutory injunction was granted by the Court. 16. That neither the 1 st -3 rd Defendants nor any of its agents, privies and servants were involved in the purported eviction of the Plaintiffs. 17. That the 1 st -3 rd Defendant could not have sanctioned such an assignment since the matter was lis pendis. 10

11 18. That assuming but not conceding that the alleged eviction was carried out by the 1 st 3 rd Defendants, such eviction would be unassailable since it will be done by the FCT Recovery of Premises, suspension of designated Order That the above Order was duly and validly made to enable 1 st -3 rd Defendants recover their property from recalcitrant occupiers like the Plaintiffs. 20. That the Plaintiffs have taken advantage of the pendency of the suit in Court to occupy the property illegally till now. 21. That all the claims of the Plaintiffs are but mere speculations. The first Defence Witness tendered the following documents in evidence. 1. Exhibit H CTC of letter dated 17/03/ Exhibit I Federal republic of Nigeria Official Gazette dated 03/07/09 Vol. 96. Under cross-examination by the Plaintiff witness, he answers as follows: That he was not aware that the 2 nd Plaintiff was allocated Flat 3, Block 57. That he was posted to the Defendants on the 11 th day of November He answered that allocation is not part of his schedule. He is aware that the 2 nd Plaintiff was in occupation of flat 3. That he is not part of the team that evicted the Plaintiffs. To a question, he answered that he is not aware of the eviction. That the Order for eviction is usually from the Adhoc Committee on the Sale of Federal government Houses but that in this case, they are not aware. He answered that he cannot remember if he had given testimony in any case in Court 9. That he cannot remember the restorative Order. He confirms that Exhibit F is Gazette while Exhibit I is for eviction. The 2 nd Defence Witness is Alkali Mohammed. That he is a civil servant. That he works in the Federal Ministry of Tourism. That on the 31 st day of October 2011, he swore to a Witness Statement on Oath. He adopts same as his oral testimony. He deposes as follows: 1. That by virtue of the Guidelines on Sale of federal government Houses, I am the person entitled to the purchase of Plot 57, D Road, FHA Estate, Karu Abuja and no other as the sole Occupier of the main Flat in the said Plot. 3. That I know as a fact that the 1 st -3 rd Defendants in this case mistakenly gave out the 4 number one-bedroom boys quarters attached to the main building which I occupy to their various occupants who is the 2 nd Plaintiff but on realizing their mistake, they 11

12 accordingly issued them a letter of withdrawal since March 2008 but they refused to vacate the premises. 4. That by the monetization policy of the Federal Government, the right to stay on the property stated in paragraph 2 above by the Plaintiffs has elapsed since the 2 nd Plaintiff s efforts to purchase had been withdrawn since March 2008 along with others. 5. That it is in carrying out their statutory duty of evicting illegal occupants in all Federal government properties in the country that the 1 st -3 rd Defendants effected the eviction of the Plaintiffs from the house they are complaining about in this suit. 6. That in carrying out their eviction activities, the 1 st 3 rd Defendants always go with and on this occasion were with Police Officers to prevent vandalization of evicted properties and prevention of breach of peace. 7. That in relation to the eviction of the Plaintiffs which they are complaining about in this suit, no effort was made to hurt the family of the Plaintiffs at all and their properties were not destroyed or stolen as the Plaintiffs and their families were there when the eviction was being carried out and were not prevented from packing the properties after the eviction exercise. 8. That I know that after the eviction of the Plaintiffs, they immediately applied to the Court where the matter was pending and obtained an Order of the Court reinstating them to the property pending the determination of the case and they have since then packed back to the property. 9. That I own Plot 57, Road D, FHA, Estate, Karu Abuja through a sale transaction between myself and the 1 st -3 rd Defendants in this case, when I applied for the house by an expression of interest form and was given a letter of offer dated 4 th December 2007 and a Demand Letter for final payment of the house dated 29/04/ That by a letter titled: The Sale of Federal Government of Nigeria Houses in Abuja: Final Payment on your House, block 57, Road, FHA Estate, Karu Abuja dated 29/04/08, the total amount due as N6,980, out of which I paid N3,520,000:00 and further payments are being processed. 11. That the house comprised of a 3-bedrrom Flat in which I live with my family and 4 number 1 bedroom boys quarters on which was illegally occupied by the Plaintiffs since March 2008 until now. 12

13 12. That even though the Plaintiffs and other occupants of my boys quarters at Plot 57 Road D, FHA Estate Karu, Abuja was mistakenly given a letter of offer by the 1 st 3 rd Defendant on the one bedroom flat they occupied, they were given letters withdrawing the said offers by the 1 st 3 rd Defendants since March 2008 but they refused to pack out and had held on to the flats illegally until now. 13. That with the commencement of the policy by the Federal Government in 2006 which informed the purchase of Plot 57, Road D, FHA Estate, Karu Abuja, by me, the Plaintiffs and other allottees of my boys quarters do not have any right to still remain in the Plaintiffs boys quarters beyond March 2008 when they were given letters of withdrawal by the 1 st 3 rd Defendants. 14. That the Plaintiffs have been in occupation of my property in Plot 57 Road D, FHA Estate Karu, Abuja illegally from 2008 till now. 15. That the one bed-room flat illegally occupied by the Plaintiffs in Plot 57 Road D, FHA Estate Karu, Abuja attract a yearly rent of N250,000:00 which will make a total of N1 Million for the period between 2008 and 2011 which is 4 years. 16. That I have suffered so much embarrassment, provocation, annoyance, gross inconvenience and unnecessary financial expenses since the Plaintiffs continued to trespass on my property. The 2 nd Defence witness tendered the following Exhibits: 1. Certified True Copy of letter of allocation dated 07/12/ Certified True Copy of Expression of Interest to purchase FGN Housing Unit dated 18/05/ Circular on the compilation of Expression of Interest dated 03/05/ Receipt of expression of interest dated 18/04/ Certified True Copy of Letter dated 29/04/ Letter of Offer dated 04/12/07 are all admitted and marked Exhibit J-J5. Under cross-examination, the witness answers as follows: That he works at the Federal Ministry of Culture and Tourism as an administrative Officer on Grade Level 15. That he had lived once in that one-bedroom apartment behind a three bedroom bungalow. That it contained a bath, toilet and a kitchen. That he does not have a 13

14 title deed to the one bedroom apartment. To a question, he states he has a title deed of the whole house including the one bedroom boys quarters. He answered that he had not worked in Federal Capital Development Authority before. That there is a letter written by Federal Capital Development Authority to him that the whole house belongs to him. To a question, he answered that there is a withdrawal letter stating the position of the one bedroom apartment given to the Plaintiffs. That he saw a copy of the letter. That he cannot remember when the Plaintiffs packed back after the Court Order. To a question, he answered that the 2 nd Defendant was not living in the house. That he does not know the 2 nd Defendant and that he does not know whose things were thrown out of the house. He answered that he does not know if there was a Court order directing them to evict the Plaintiffs. That there was an Order against Federal Capital Development Authority to reinstate the Plaintiffs. To a question, he answered that he does not know how many days it took them to comply. That he did not tell Federal Capital Development Authority anything. That he was in his house on the day of eviction. That he did not keep the belongings of the Plaintiffs. That Exhibit A2, A3 and A4 are not his belongings. That the house in the photograph is not his house. That the 2 nd Plaintiff was staying with him from in the one bedroom opposite him. That he know his wife and children. That he does not know the 1 st Defendant. The parties filed and exchanged Written Addresses. The 4 th Defendant s Written Address is dated the 7 th day of December, Learned counsel adopted same as his oral argument. He raised two issues for determination: 1. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to their claim given the facts presented in this case. 2. Whether the 4 th Defendant is entitled to the reliefs in his Counter claim given the facts of this case. On issue 1, Counsel submits that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to their present claim because the suit offends the much cherished Public policy and constitutional provision of double jeopardy, multiplicity of court actions, re-litigation of issues. That Plaintiffs pleaded Suit FCT/HC/CV/624/08 and a restorative Order of the Court dated 16/02/11 following a complaint of wrongful ejection by the Defendants. That all the parties in the present suit are the same parties before Court 9. That it is wrong to put the 1 st Plaintiff as a joint Plaintiff since he does not have any independent right over the property in dispute. That the 4 th Defendant was an 14

15 interested party who acted as a witness in Court 9 to the 1 st 3 rd Defendants. That after the restorative Order, no Order of eviction has taken place. That the only addition to the reliefs claimed is the claim for damages. Learned Counsel also refers to Section 36 (9) of the 1999 Constitution and DAGAASH VS. BULAMA (2004) 14 NWLR (PT.892) 144 in respect of issue estopel. The Learned Counsel to the 4 th Defendant further submits that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to their reliefs because the Defendants are justified in their ejection of the Plaintiffs on the grounds that the Plaintiffs are illegal occupants in the said property. Learned Counsel further submits that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to their claim for damages. That the Defendants cannot be found liable a second time for the same offence. That the evidence brought forward in support of the damages claimed are not credible and reliable. That a party with an annual rent of N250, with 10 people in a one-bedroom flat could expend N1,200, within 9 days having regard to the fact that the entire amount was paid upfront on the day of eviction. Witness said he paid N10,000 a day for 10 nights which is N100, yet he claimed to have spent N371,000 for 10 days. Learned Counsel submits that the inventory is also not reliable. That no evidence was led to show their actual existence, worth and ownership. There is no receipt of purchase. That the photographs did not show any of the properties as damaged. He urges the Court to disbelieve the evidence. On the 2 nd issue, learned Counsel had withdrawn same. I shall therefore not bother to produce the argument on same. The 1 st 3 rd Defendants Counsel also adopted his final written address dated 02/11/12 but filed on the 5/11/12 as his oral augment. Learned Counsel raised four issues for determination: 1. Whether the 1 st Plaintiff being a person unknown to the Defendants has the locus standi to institute this action against the 1 st 3 rd Defendants. 2. Whether the 3 rd Defendant on record is a juristic person capable of suing and being sued in this action. 15

16 3. Whether the Plaintiffs have proved their claims against the 1 st -3 rd Defendants so as to be entitled to judgment. 4. Whether this present suit does not constitute an abuse of Court process earlier granted. On issue 1, Learned Counsel submits that for a party to institute an action, he must have a positive legal right. That the 1 st Plaintiff has not shown by way of pleadings or evidence led how he came to occupy a Federal Government property. That the 1 st Plaintiff has not shown any positive nexus between him and the Defendants so as to entitle him to claim on trespass to his property. That he is a person that is not known to law. that he is not a proper party hence the Court cannot assume jurisdiction. He relies on AROWOLO VS AKAUYELO (2012) 4 NWLR (PT.1290) 286 AT 307. That the 1 st Plaintiff has not shown any positive evidence of title or any legally recognizable right over the property he is claiming to have been illegally evicted. That there has not been any papers or documents evidencing his alleged interest in the property. That for a person to have a locus standi, the statement of claim must have been seen to disclose (a) reasonable cause of action (b) an established legal right. That the 1 st Plaintiff has not fulfilled the above conditions. That the non-existence of locus standi on the part of the Plaintiff is a feature that vitiates the jurisdiction of the Court. He urges the Court to decline jurisdiction. On issue 2, Learned Counsel submits that it is the law that every party to a suit must have legal personality. That in the present suit, the 3 rd Defendant on record is not a legal person in law as it is neither a natural nor artificial person capable of being sued. That the 3 rd Defendant is not a juristic person. That at best, it could suffice as an agent who cannot be sued as it has a disclosed principal. Learned Counsel urges the Court to strike out the suit. The Learned counsel also canvassed that the entire suit is bound to fail and all Defendants discharged. That the effect of discharge of one party where parties are sued jointly and severally is discharge of all the parties. He refers to KADZI INT. LTD VS KANO TANNERY CO. LTD (2004) 4 NWLR (PT.864) P On issue 3, Counsel submits that the Plaintiffs have woefully failed to establish their claims against the Defendants. He refers to paragraphs 7 and 4 of the Plaintiffs Witness Statements on Oath respectively and Exhibit B. The Exhibit B was written 30 days after the eviction. 16

17 That the Plaintiffs alleged breach of their personal rights and properties without tying such breach to any identifiable individual or person. That there must be proof of a legal nexus between the claim and the legal conduct of the Defendants in such a way that the Court of law will find the Defendants liable and in the absence of such proof of which the claim would fail. That the Plaintiff has failed to establish in evidence that the alleged eviction was at the order of the 1 st -3 rd Defendants. That the evidential burden on the Plaintiff has not been discharged. That the Plaintiff has also not placed any credible material before the Court to rule in their favour in respect of the special damages claimed. That the Plaintiffs merely listed some household items without proving all the particularized items. That special damages cannot be awarded on mere conjecture or on some fluid and speculative estimate, but on facts pleaded which must be proved strictly. That in this case, the Plaintiff merely listed some household items without more. He urges the Court to dismiss the claim. That the Plaintiffs averment in paragraphs 22 and 27 of the Statement of Claim and on oath are speculative. That witness frontloaded and annexed a purported Hotel bill for N1.2 Million only to turn around at the witness box to tender a different receipt for N370, Refers to Exhibits E-E2 and Annexure EA2. That the evidence of the Plaintiffs are contradictory as to the amount spent at the hotel and the name of the Hotel under cross-examination. The Plaintiffs also claimed professional fees paid to their solicitor. misconceived in law. That this relief is He refers to GUINEES NIG. PLC VS NWOKE (2000) 15 NWLR (PT.689) 135 AT 150. NNAJI VS COASTAL SERVICES (NIG) LTD (2004) 11 NWLR (PT.885) 552. On issue 4, Counsel submits that the suit is an abuse of Court process. That the Plaintiffs had a good remedy in the mandatory injunction granted by the law restoring them to the status quo ante. That this Court should therefore decline further remedy the Plaintiff is foreclosed from bringing this action. He urges the Court to dismiss the suit. 17

18 The Plaintiffs also adopted their final Written Address dated and filed on the 10 th day of May, The Plaintiffs raised four issues for determination in the said address: 1. Whether the Plaintiffs have the right to institute the suit against the 1 st 3 rd Defendant. 2. Whether this suit amounts to an abuse of Court process. 3. Whether the Plaintiffs have proved their case so as to entitled them to judgment. 4. Whether the Counterclaim does not amount to an abuse of court process. On the first issue, learned Counsel contends that in order to ascertain the rights of the Plaintiffs to institute an action against the 1 st -3 rd Defendants, the cause of action must be vested on them jointly which can only be determined by examining the Joint Statement of Claim. That by virtue of the Plaintiff s occupation of Plot 57, Road D, FHA Estate, Karu Abuja, all inherent legal rights, obligations or interests attached are inalienable. That trespass to land is actionable at the suit of the person in possession whether he is the owner or privy to the owner. That the evidence is that the 1 st Plaintiff was in occupation/possession during the eviction by the 1 st 3 rd Defendants. On the 2 nd issue, Learned counsel argues that suit HC/CV.624/08 from which Motion HC/M/3351/11 emanated from does not present the same issues with this case neither does the claims in this suit the same with the claims in the other suit. He refers to Exhibit D. The factor that must be present before the doctrine of estoppel can be applied are non-existence, in this suit. On the 3 rd issue as to whether the Plaintiffs have proved their case so as to entitle them to judgment. That the Plaintiff in claiming special damages have specifically averred in paragraphs and 29 of the Statement of Claim several financial losses and liabilities incurred as a result of the wrongful ejection which he argued was supported by Exhibits A-A5, D, C-C1, E E2 whereof the Plaintiff specifically pleaded and strictly discharged the burden of proof on them. I shall not summarize the submission on the last issue as the claim in respect thereof was withdrawn. Learned Counsel finally urges the Court to find for the Plaintiffs. 18

19 I have read the evidence of parties and considered the written addresses of Counsel vide the issues raised. The issues that are common to all Counsel in this suit are: 1. Whether the Plaintiffs have the locus standi to institute this action and or whether the Plaintiffs have a cause of action against the Defendants. 2. Whether the Plaintiffs have proved their claims against the Defendants. 3. Whether or not the suit is an abuse of Court process. On issue 1, the 1 st to 3 rd Defendants Counsel had argued that the Plaintiffs especially the 1 st Plaintiff has not shown that he has a legal right to protect. That he has not shown by pleadings and evidence how he came about occupying the property the subject matter of this action. That he has not shown any nexus between him and the Defendants as to entitle him to claim for trespass. That the 1 st Plaintiff has no standing to sue. The 4th Defendant on the other hand canvasses that the 1 st Plaintiff does not have an independent right over the property in dispute since the 2 nd Plaintiff is the only recognized official occupant of the premises. It is settled that locus standi or capacity to institute proceedings in a court of law connotes the right of a person to appear and be heard on the question before the Court or tribunal without any inhibition or hindrance from any person or body whatsoever. For a person however to possess the necessary capacity, such a party must show that he is affected or likely to be affected or aggravated by the proceedings. See TABIOWO VS. DISU (2008) 7 NWLR (PT.1087) P. 533 P In determining whether the Plaintiff or the 1 st Plaintiff has a cause of action, the Court will have to look at the Statement of Claim. The Court will not look at the prospect of the case succeeding or lacking of it. See CHEVRON NIG. LTD VS LONESTAR DRILLING NIG. LTD (2007) 7SC (PT. 11 P.27. ABUBAKAR VS BEBEJI OIL & ALLIED PRODUCTS LTD & 2 ORS (2007) 2 SC 48. A cause of action is the fact or facts which establishes or gives rise to a right of action. 19

20 A factual situation which gives a person the right to judicial relief. Once the Statement of Claim in a case discloses some cause of action or some questions fit to be decided by a Judge notwithstanding that the case is weak or unlikely to succeed, the Plaintiff is said to have a cause of action. It is every fact which is material to be proved to entitle a Plaintiff to succeed or all those things necessary to give a right to relief in law or equity. See A.G. FEDERATION VS. A.G. ABIA STATE (2001) 11 NWLR (PT.725) 689 AT 733. MILITARY GOVERNOR ONDO STATE & 5 ORS. VS. KOLAWOLE & 4 ORS. (2008) 4-5 SC (pt.11) p.158 at ELABANJO & ANOR. VS. DAWODU (2006) 6-7 SC. 24 AT 43. It is settled law that it is the totality of the averments in the statement of claim that determines the accrual of cause of action. Therefore, it is the averments in the Statement of claim that determines when the cause of action accrues. A cause of action arises the moment a wrong is done to the Plaintiff by the Defendant and the wrong which is the basis of the dispute is the factual situation which suffices the Plaintiff to seek remedy. See ADEKOYA VS. FHA (2008) 11 NWLR (PT.1099) P.539 AT 552. I shall reproduce the relevant portions of the Statement of Claim: 1. The Plaintiffs occupy the property situate at Plot 57, Flat 3, Road D, Federal Housing Authority, Old Karu Road, FCT Abuja. 2. The 1 st Defendant is the Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. 3. The 2 nd Defendant is in charge of the general development of the Federal Capital Territory. 4. The 3 rd Defendant is an agent of the 1 st and 2 nd Defendants, charged with the responsibility of Houses in the FCT, Abuja. 5. The 4 th Defendant is a Flat neighbor occupying a three bedroom situate at Plot 57, Flat 3, Road D, Federal Housing Authority, Old Karu Road, Karu FCT Abuja. 20

21 6. The Plaintiffs averred that the property Plot 57, Flat 3, Road D, Federal Housing Authority, Old Karu Road, Karu FCT Abuja is owned by the 1 st Plaintiff and the 2 nd Plaintiff (the brother) has been living in the property with their respective immediate families. 7. The 1 st Plaintiff avers that on the 10 th day of February 2011 about the hours of 6.00 p.m while he was still in his office at Nyanya Abuja, he received a phone call from his wife informing him that some persons were carrying out eviction in their flat. 8. The 2 nd Plaintiff avers that he was informed that the 4 th Defendant a co-resident together with agents of the 1 st -3 rd Defendants accompanied by three armed policemen were evicting occupants from the premises. 9. The 2 nd Plaintiff avers that he was surprised, reason being that there is a pending suit before the FCT High Court, Abuja to which the 1 st 3 rd Defendants are Respondents. 10. The 1 st Plaintiff also avers that he hurried down to the premises and on getting home discovered the information to be true, that his flat neighbour was accompanied by three armed Policemen along with agents of the 1 st 3 rd Defendants directing them on flats to be forcefully evicted. 11. The Plaintiffs aver that they were forcefully thrown out with all their belongings together with their immediate families of six members. 12. The 1 st Plaintiff avers that on further inquiry and demand for a Court Order directing the Defendants to carry out the evictions and as to the reasons for the eviction, he was told by one of the armed Policemen (PC Danjuma) not to interfere with the eviction process because they were authorized to do so by the Defendants while agents of the 1 st -3 rd Defendants told him to go to their Office for answers to any question he may have. 13. The Plaintiffs aver that the 4 th Defendant in collaboration with the Police intimidated and traumatized their children by the manner of ejection of the children who were just back from school and were about having their supper, were suddenly stopped and hurried out of the apartment by the 4 th Defendant and agents of the 1 st 3 rd Defendants. 14. That Defendants succeeded in throwing all his personal belongings together with that of the 2 nd Plaintiff out of the apartment and premises while he was prevented from any form of interference by the armed policemen. 15. That the Plaintiffs aver that all their personal effects valuables and household belongings were laying scattered recklessly outside the premises. 21

22 22. Plaintiffs aver that during the pendence of the unlawful ejection, they had to get alternative accommodation and lodge themselves and immediate family of six in a hotel. 24. That on returning to the premises the following day, they took inventory of their belongs and discovered that most of their valuables were missing while other personal effects and electronic gadgets were broken and damaged as a result of the forceful and reckless manner (their) his personal belongings were thrown out of the apartment by the Defendants. 27. That they incurred financial liabilities being payment for temporary accommodation/feeding in the Hotel at Nyanya for themselves and entire family of six members for a period of 10 days. 28. That the entire families suffered psychological trauma and great embarrassment when they were thrown out of the one bedroom apartment and for the period they were illegally ejected by the Defendants. The claims or reliefs had earlier been reproduced in this Judgment. They are for (1) A declaration that the ejection is unlawful and illegal. (2) N30 Million General Damages (3) 5 Million for Special Damages. From the foregoing paragraphs in the Statement of claim particularly paragraphs 1,7,8,10,11,13,14, it is clear that the Plaintiffs were alleging that the Defendants unlawfully ejected them and their family members from the accommodation they believed to be lawfully occupying. That their properties were carelessly and recklessly thrown out of the said accommodation. See paragraph 15. That their personal effects and electronic gadgets were broken and damaged while some of their properties were missing. That they also paid their solicitors N1Million giving rise to the Claims before the Court. The facts as enumerated in the averments clearly established a right of action or rather gives the Plaintiffs a right of action. There are questions fit to be decided upon. There are questions begging for resolution as averred in the Statement of Claim. 22

23 There is also no doubt that the 1 st Plaintiff was affected by the alleged unlawful ejection. From the averments, he was also in occupation with members of his family. Undoubtedly living with the 2 nd Plaintiff who he claimed to be his brother. His properties were also thrown out and damaged and or missing. The argument of the Defendants is that the 1 st Plaintiff was not in lawful occupation. That there was no nexus between the 1 st Plaintiff and the property. Trespass is the unjustifiable interference with the possession of land. The law is that an entry into another s land is tortuous whether or not the entrant knows that he is trespassing. It is no defence that the only reason for his entry was that he genuinely believe but erroneously that the land was his. Possession in fact confers no actual right of property but a person may nevertheless maintain trespass against any one who interferes who cannot himself show that he has the right to recover possession immediately. See WINFIELD AND JOLOWICS on tort, 10 th Edition, Page 300. See WUTA-OFFEI VS DANQUAH (1961) 1 WLR OCEAN ESTATE LTD VS. PINDER (1969) 2 AC 19. There is no doubt from the averments that both Plaintiffs were in possession of the property. The 1 st Plaintiff and his family were in possession by reason of his relationship with the 2 nd Plaintiff (brother). It has been held that wrongful possession in principle be protected except against the owner of the thing stolen or someone acting lawfully on his behalf. The 1 st Plaintiff was not a thief but was put in possession by the 2 nd Plaintiff his brother who was in lawful occupation and whose title was a subject of litigation at the time the alleged unlawful eviction took place. It is my view and I so hold that the Plaintiffs particularly the 1 st Plaintiff has a reasonable cause of action and afortiori has the locus standi to institute the action in conjunction with the 2 nd Plaintiff. The 1 st Plaintiff is a proper party in this suit and his presence is germane to the effective and effectual determination of this suit once and for all. The 1 st 3 rd Defendants Counsel also canvassed that the 3 rd Defendant is not a juristic person. That it is not a known person in law as it is neither a natural nor artificial person. That if the 3 rd Defendant has been found to be incompetent to sue and be sued, such a 23

24 person cannot be made a party in this action. He argued that in the circumstance, the suit is bound to fail as a discharge of one operates as a discharge for all. The Plaintiffs Joint Statement of Claim refers to all the four defendants. That it was the representatives and or agents of the 1 st -3 rd Defendants who were unlawfully ejecting them from the occupation of their premises. The court has taken judicial notice of the AD-HOC Committee on the Sale of Federal Government of Nigeria Houses by an official Gazette. As a general principle, only natural persons that are human beings and juristic or artificial persons such as body corporate are competent to sue or be sued. The law however, recognizes that apart from natural and juristic persons, some non-legal entities can sue and be sued eonomine. The 3 rd Defendant is a creation of law and has been recognized as such. It has been performing its functions as such. It is a creation of the Federal Government of Nigeria. See Exhibit J4 which involved the 3 rd Defendant in the Sale of the property in issue. In the circumstance, it can sue and be sued. See ATAGUBA & CO. VS. GURA NIG. LTD (2005) 2 SC (PT.1) 101 AT 105. I find it expedient to consider the last issue i.e. issue 3 before issue 2. It is whether or not the suit is an abuse of Court process. Abuse of Court process has been defined as situation and conditions which involve the improper use of the judicial process by a party in litigation to interfere with the due administration of justice. It is the employment of the judicial process to the irritation and annoyance of the opponent in the efficient and effectual administration of justice. See OGOEJEOFOR VS OGOEJEOFO (2006) 3 NWLR (PT.966) P It involves the multiplicity of suits involving the same parties, same issues and same subject matter. The Supreme Court held further: 24