AFTER disagreeing with all issues raised by two of the defendants, a Federal High Court, Lagos, has nullified the sale of a high-brow property in Ikoyi, Lagos, to an army general by the Implementation Committee of the White paper on the Commission of Inquiry into Alienation of Federal Government Landed Property.The court also ordered that the army chief, in person of Major-General Sunday Nlenchukwu Chikwe and indeed all the defendants in the suits, their assigns, agents, privies or any other person claiming through them to immediately vacate the controversial property, No. 12, Cameron Road, Ikoyi, Lagos, on one hand, while it also directed the plaintiff to take possession.The judgment, which was delivered recently in a suit by the Chief Registrar of the Federal High Court against Minister of Environment, Housing and Urban Development, Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Implementation Committee of the White Paper on the Commission of Inquiry into the Alienation of Federal Government Landed Property and the then General Commanding Officer, 81 Division, Nigerian Army, Kofo Abayomi Street, Lagos, Major-General Sunday Nlenchukwu Chikwe. They are first to fourth defendants.But the court's verdict is still hanging in the air as the defendants are in court contesting the verdict. While an appeal is already lodged at the Court of appeal, Lagos, a process seeking stay of the judgment is before the trial Judge, Mr. M.B. Idris.Summarily, the Federal Government had in 1996 allocated the official quarters to a Judge of the Federal High Court, Lagos, which was earlier occupied by late Justice F.O. Anyaegbunam.The property, according to the army was lying empty, dilapidated and wasted until 1996 when it was allocated to the Nigerian Army, who in turn reallocated same to one of its officers, Col. B.A Kwembeh. Upon his retirement, the Nigerian Army reallocated the property to Major-General S.N. Chikwe, who was said bought over the property under the government's sale of its landed property.While the court's record shows that the first and second defendants did not respond to the processes filed by the plaintiff, the third and the fourth defendants reacted to the plaintiff's originating summons through counter affidavits, wherein the claims by the plaintiff were disputed. The duo also asked the court to disqualify itself from hearing and determining the suit.In the plaintiff's written address, it was argued that any act of the third respondent purporting to alienate No. 12, Cameron Road, Ikoyi to the fourth defendant was ultra vires the powers conferred upon it by the Federal Executive Council and was therefore null and void. It was submitted that the first to third defendants did not act within the guidelines for the alienation of the Federal Government houses in Lagos, marked as exhibit MKB3 (guideline issued by the Federal Executive Council as contained in a publication inserted by the third defendant in ThisDay Newspaper of June 20, 2005).It was argued that exhibits MKB1 (letter of allocation by Minister of State for Works and Housing to the Chief Judge, Federal High Court, Lagos) and MKB2 (a letter from the head of Service of the Federation, purportedly listed the subject matter as belonging to the plaintiff), the property in question was allocated to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff was the legal tenant thereof, contending that the attempt by the first to third respondents to alienate, sell and/or lease the property amounted to an abuse of office.According to the counsel of the plaintiff, Mr. Tony Nobel of the Ricky Tarfa and Co, the Chief Registrar being an office created by statute was a legal person and could commence and defend actions, adding that the court had exclusive jurisdiction in matters involving the Federal Government or any of its agencies.On initiating the suit through originating summons and the supporting affidavit, Nwogbe said there was nothing defective in that procedure since the claims of the plaintiff bothered on the interpretation of the guidelines issued to the first to third defendants for the disposal of the houses of the Federal Government, and the documents annexed to the affidavit, adding that was the proper thing to do.The third respondent raised four issues including the competence of the court to determine the matter. It was argued that the court was not competent to entertain and make a decision on the matter as to whether the sale of their purported official quarter was legal since the judges of the same court were interested in the outcome of the suit and are beneficiaries if the suit succeeded.On the second issue, it was argued that the facts of the suit were in dispute and that the plaintiff ought not to have commenced the suit by originating summons. It was submitted that exhibits MKB1 and MKB2 through which the plaintiff was laying claim to the disputed property were not authentic documents and could not confer any right on the plaintiff.Similarly, it was argued that the Committee did not exceed the powers conferred on it by FEC as a Federal Judge based in Lagos did not occupy the property, and therefore it was not exempted from sale.On the fourth issue, it was contended that the plaintiff had not placed any authentic document before the court to prove that the controversial was allocated to the judges of the Federal High Court.As canvassed by the fourth defendant, the Chief Registrar lacked the necessary locus to commence the action because the rules of the court did not confer either expressly or impliedly the power to initiate or defend any action.His lawyers, led by Mr. Patrick E. Okohue, contended that there was an alteration on the face of an exhibit, and that there was the need to order pleadings where exhibit could be tendered in its original or its secondary form. It was also contended that exhibit AD2 was a photocopy of a public document and was inadmissible.Also submitted was that the subject matter of the action was abandoned and that the rights of the army chief was consented to by the action or inaction of the plaintiff, that the plaintiff became aware of the fact that the house was occupied on October 30, 1996, and no action took place until 11 years after and three years after the army official had altered its position. It was further submitted that the suit was defeated by the doctrine of standing by. Conclusively, the court was urged to dismiss the action.In his judgment, Justice Idris, who did not decline jurisdiction on the ground that the issues raised were within the purview of the court said he had no doubt in his mind that the purported sale of No 12 Cameron Road, Ikoyi, Lagos to the fourth defendant was unlawful, null and void, saying it was done without recourse to the law.He added, 'on the whole, I hold that the plaintiff's action is meritorious, and he is entitled to all the orders sought.
Click here to read full news..
