The Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal has dismissed for lacking in merit an appeal challenging the judgement of Justice Peter Affen of High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, in respect of land ownership dispute within the Federal Capital Territory.
The appeal was filed by Federal Capital Development Authority, River Plate Estate (Jonah Capital Nigeria Ltd and House for Africa Nigeria Ltd), against Blessed & Precious Children Academy Ltd, General Building Material Dealers Association Lugbe and Land Owners Association, Lugbe.
Justice Bature Gafai, in a lead judgment on Tuesday upheld the judgement of the trial court delivered by Justice Affen, which had on March 14, 2011, restrained the defendants whether acting by themselves or through their agents, servants, privies or otherwise from trespassing, entering upon or interfering with or otherwise disturbing the plaintiffs’ enjoyment and possession of all the parcel of land known as Lugbe 1 extension layout, FCT, save as provided by law.
Other Justices on the panel unanimously agreed with the lead decision.
In arriving at justice of the appeal, Justice Gafai dismissed the three issues raised by the appellants.
The argument of the appellants that the case was wrongly commenced by way of originating summons was also dismissed by the appellate court.
Justice Gafai noted that “In the entire argument of the appellants, no single references to the facts made by the respondents in their affidavits were made.
“What the appellants did was to construct their own facts and depositions and did not bother to address the issue raised by the respondents in their affidavit.
“But sadly, they did not controvert facts in the affidavit of the respondents.
“I agree with the judgement of lower court that there was no specific denial by the appellants on the issues in dispute.
“When facts are deposed in an affidavit, you can only contradict them and not to construct new facts not pleaded at the trial court.”
Th Court of Appeal also held that the appellants did not object to the method of commencement of the suit at the lower court, only to raise the issue at the appellate court.
“Nothing stops the appellants from applying to the lower court to set aside the suit since they felt it was wrongly commenced by way of originating summons,” the court held.
The court observed that the FCT Minister was not made a party in the suit and therefore the issue of the proper person to issue certificate of occupancy in relation to the question raised by the appellants was of no moment.
The appellate court described the question as “Appellants
stark irredeemable confusion that has characterised their second issue.
“It does not merit any consideration and it is hereby dismissed,” the court ordered.
