DIVISION HOLDEN AT IKORODU.
BETWEEN SUIT NO IKD/M/18/2009
Alhaji Tajudeen Olusola Rabiu
(for himself and on behalf of his Privies) ………….. Claimant
AND
Chief Jimoh Tijani
Mr. Jimoh Safari
Mr. Isiaka Aborishade …………. Defendants
Chief Kayode Oshin (for themselves and as representatives of the entire members of Ifegbuwa Family of Imowo Nla, Ikorodu)
JUDGMENT
The Claimant who claims ownership of 980 plots (or 164 acres or 66 hectares) of land within the
Ifegbuwa Family land at Imowo Nla village in Ikorodu approached this Court by an Originating summons dated the 3rd of April, 2009 seeking the Court to interpret three documents (i) a Deed of
Assignment dated the 14th of December, 1999; (ii) The Ifegbuwa Family of Imowo Nla’s Certificate of Occupancy of Family Land Agreement dated the 15th of April, 2006; and (iii) a Deed of Assignment dated the 22nd of April, 2006. The Claimant posed four questions for determination by this Court and these were:
- Whether or not the three stated documents are valid and binding between the parties herein?
- Whether or not the Claimant is entitled to an order of specific performance of the tenor of the three documents duly executed between the parties?
iii. Whether or not the Claimant and/or his privies are entitled to a quiet enjoyment and peaceable possession of his 980 plots of land within the Ifegbuwa Family land in Imowo Nla village which was validly granted to him by the Ifegbuwa Family of Imowo Nla now represented by the Defendants herein?
- Whether or not the Claimant and/or his privies are entitled to an order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants and other members of the Ifegbuwa family from interfering with and/or disturbing the quiet enjoyment and peaceable possession of the claimant and this privies of the 980 plots of land within the Ifegbuwa Family land at Imowo Nla Village, Ikorodu?
In the event that these four questions are determined in his favour, the Claimant sought the following reliefs:
- A declaration that the Deed of Assignment dated the 14th of December, 1999; the Ifegbuwa Family of Imowo Nla’s Certificate of Occupancy of Family Land Agreement dated the 15th of April, 2006; and the Deed of Assignment dated the 22nd of April, 2006 are valid and binding between the parties to this suit.
- A declaration that the Claimant and/or his privies are entitled to the quiet enjoyment and peaceable possession of his 980 plots of land within the Ifegbuwa Family land in Imowo Nla which was validly granted to him by the Ifegbuwa family of Imowo Nla now represented by The defendants.
- An order of specific performance of the tenor of the Deed of Assignment dated the 14th of December, 1999; the Ifegbuwa family of Imowo Nla’s Certificate of Occupancy of Family Land Agreement dated the 15th of April, 2006; and the Deed of Assignment dated the 22nd of April, 2006 duly executed between the parties.
- An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants and other members of the Ifegbuwa family from interfering with and/or disturbing the quiet enjoyment and peaceable possession of the Claimant and his privies of the 980 plots of land within the Ifegbuwa Family land at Imowo Nla Village, Ikorodu which was validly allocated to the Claimant.
The Originating Summons was supported by an affidavit of affidavit of twenty-nine paragraphs deposed to on the 6th of April, 2009 with the documents to be relied on filed along with the affidavit. Counsel to the Claimant filed a brief of written arguments in support of the application and it consisted of four pages and was dated the 3rd of April, 2009. The first and second Defendants responded by filing a counter affidavit of thirty-six paragraphs deposed to on the 25th of June, 2009. Counsel to the first and second Defendants did not file a written brief of arguments on the application. The third and fourth Defendants filed a counter affidavit of thirty-three paragraphs and it was deposed to on the 10th of June, 2009 and the documents they intended to rely on were filed along with the counter affidavit. The third and fourth Defendants also filed a reply to the counter affidavit of the first and second Defendants and it consisted of thirteen paragraphs and was deposed to on the 10th of July, 2009. Counsel to the third and fourth Defendants filed a written brief of arguments dated the 9th of June, 2009 and it consisted of three pages. The Claimant filed a reply to the counter affidavit of the third and fourth Defendants and it consisted of forty-five paragraphs with exhibits attached and it was deposed to on the 24th of June, 2009. The third and fourth Defendants filed what they referred to as a “Sur Reply” to the Reply of the Claimant to their counter affidavit and it consisted of seven paragraphs and was deposed to on the 10th of July, 2009. Counsel to the third and fourth Defendants filed a further address of two pages and it was dated the 10th of July, 2009.
The claimant is a survey technician and it was his case that he was engaged by the family of the Defendants sometime in 1999 to carry out survey works in respect of the entire Ifegbuwa family land at Imowo Nla Village in Ikorodu and the terms of engagement for the survey works were embodied in an Agreement, a Deed of Assignment, dated the 14th of December, 1999. It was his case that his task was to ensure the preparation of the boundary survey plan of the land and which must be duly signed by a registered surveyor with a Red Copy lodged at the Surveyor General’s Office, ensure the preparation of a layout plan of the land and the establishment of survey pillars and beacons of the land and the works were to be carried out at his expense and his recompense was to be by the conveyance to him by the family of the Defendants of one sixth portion of the entire land to be covered by the survey works. It was his case that he commenced the survey works in the year 2000 and that he completed the preparation of the boundary survey plan and of the layout plan in 2001 and he handed the boundary survey plan duly executed by a licensed Surveyor and the Red Copy of which was lodged at the Surveyor General’s Office as well as the layout plan to the head and principal members of the Ifegbuwa family in 2001 and that it took him five years thereafter to complete the establishment of survey beacons and pillars on the entire land.
It was the case of the Claimant that his performance of the agreed survey works satisfied the members of the Ifegbuwa family and it met with the approval of the head and principal members of the family and that the total area of land covered by the survey works was 1029 acres of land including the existing village but that the representatives of the Defendants’ family pleaded with him to leave out the existing village in his calculation of the one sixth of the portion of land due to him. It was his case that after negotiations, it was agreed that 980 plots of land, part of the land covered by the survey works, were due to him as compensation and the family executed in his favour a certificate of Family Land Agreement dated the 15th of April, 2006 conveying the ownership of the 980 plots of land to him and that, on the advice of his counsel, a further Deed of Asignmetn of the 980 plots of land dated the 22nd of April, 2006 was prepared and duly executed in his favour by the head and principal members of the family. It was his case that the Family sold portions of the land using the boundary survey plan and the layout plan and that he similarly sold portions of his land and he allocated some part of it to his staff and other persons who assisted him in carrying out the survey works.
It was the case of the claimant that sometime in September, 2006, a factional crisis occurred within the Ifegbuwa family with two factions emerging, one headed by the first and second Defendant and the other by the third and fourth Defendants and that thugs and mercenaries who came unto the land as an outflow of the crisis in the family are preventing him and his assignees from having access to his plots of land and are disturbing his quiet enjoyment and peaceable possession of his plots of land. It was his case that the thugs and mercenaries have encroached upon his plots of land and are dealing adversely with the land and that he caused his Solicitors to address a letter dated the 27th of February, 2009 to the Defendants to sort out the problem but they have been unable to do so and the Defendants intend to take his plots of land through strong arm tactics and deprive him and his privies of the use of the land.
The first and second Defendants admitted the totally of the case of the Claimant. The third and fourth Defendants did not contest that the Ifegbuwa family of Imowo Nla Village in Ikorodu engaged the Claimants to carry out survey works in respect of the entire Ifegbuwa family land at Imowo Nla Village in Ikorodu and that the terms of engagement for the survey works were embodied in an Agreement, a Deed of Assignment, dated the 14th of December, 1999. They did not contest the description of the task as stated by the Claimant and that the works were to be carried out at the expense of the Claimant and that the Claimant’s recompense was to be by the conveyance to him by their family of one sixth portion of the entire land to be covered by the survey works. They admitted that the Claimant handed to the Family a boundary survey plan of the Ifegbuwa Family land at Imowo Nla village, Ikorodu duly signed by a licensed surveyor as well as a layout plan of the entire land but they denied that the Claimant established survey beacons and pillars on the land as agreed and they stated that the Claimant did not give them evidence of the lodgment on the land as agreed and they stated that the Claimant did not give them evidence of the lodgment of the boundary survey plan at the office of the Surveyor General. It was their case that the Claimant did not also obtain approval for the change of use of the land and that the Claimant failed to heed the several requests made to him by the Family for a meeting to look into these shortcomings and that this prompted them to write a letter dated the 3rd of October, 2006 to the claimant. It was their case that the Deed of Assignment dated the 14th of December, 1999 was conditional upon the fulfillment of some conditions by the Claimant and the conditions were not fulfilled and that the persons who executed the document dated the 15th of April, 2006 and the 22nd of April, 2006 did not have the authority of the Ifegbuwa Family to do so. It was their case that the head of the Ifegbuwa family was one late Chief Kalejaiye Idowu until his death on the 6th of August, 2005 and that the third Defendant was thereafter made head of the family on the 18th of April, 2007 and he was duly capped as such by the Ayangburen of Ikorodu in October of 2007.
In the reply affidavit, the Claimant reiterated that he carried out the survey works as agreed to the satisfaction of the Ifegbuwa Family and to the approval of the head and principal members of the family and that the boundary survey plan and the layout plan he gave to the Family are being used by them till date. He conceded that one late Chief Kalejaiye Idowu was the erstwhile head of the Ifegbuwa family but it was his case that at a point in time late Chief Kalejaiye Idowu was unable to function due to old age, as he was around one hundred years old then, and the first Defendant was unanimously chosen by the Family to deputise for him in an acting capacity. It was his case that sometimes in 2005, the Ifegbuwa family appointed a twenty-four man land committee to manage the affairs of the Ifegbuwa family land and that the entire family represented by the members of the land committee selected ten of the members of the committee to be the signatories of the Family and to act as the accredited representatives of the family. It was his case that he dealt with the accredited and proper members of the Ifegbuwa family throughout his dealings with the family. These facts were affirmed by the first and second Defendants in their counter affidavit.
It was an agreed fact amongst the parties that the family of the Defendants engaged the claimant sometimes in 1999 to carry out survey works in respect of the entire Ifegbuwa family land at Imowo Nla Village in Ikorodu and that the terms of engagement for the survey works were embodied in an Agreement, a Deed of Assignment, dated the 14th of December, 1999; the agreement was filed along with the originating processes. It was agreed that the tasks of the Claimant were to ensure the preparation of the boundary survey plan of the land and which must be duly signed by a registered surveyor with a Red Copy lodged at the Surveyor General’s Office, preparation of a layout plan of the land and the establishment of survey pillars and beacons on the land and the works were to be carried out at the expense of the Claimant and his recompense was to be by the conveyance to him by the family of the Defendants of one sixth portion of the entire land to be covered by the survey works. By the Deed of Assignment dated 14th of December, 1999, the head and accredited representatives sought to convey an unspecified portion of the Ifegbuwa family land to the Claimant in consideration of the Claimant having carried out agreed survey works of preparing a boundary survey plan, a layout plan and the establishment of survey beacon and pillars on the land. As agreed by all the parties, it was by this Deed of Assignment that the Claimant was engaged to carry out the survey works. It is clear therefore that the Deed of Assignment of 14th of December, 1999 was an anticipatory agreement and it was made in anticipation of the Claimant carrying out the agreed survey works.
It was the case of the Claimant that he carried out the agreed survey works and that he handed the boundary survey plan duly executed by a licensed Surveyor and the Red Copy of which was lodged at the Surveyor General’s Office and the layout plan to the head and principal members of the Ifegbuwa family in 2001 and that it took him five years to complete the establishment of survey beacons and pillars on the entire land. It was his case that it was agreed that he would be given 980 plots of the Ifegbuwa family land as his compensation for the works and that the family executed in his favour a Certificate of Family Land Agreement dated the 15th of April, 2006 conveying the ownership of the 980 plots of land to him and that, on the advice of his Counsel, a further Deed of Assignment of the 980 plots of land dated the 22nd of April, 2006 was prepared and duly executed in his favour by the head and principal members of the Family. The first and second Defendants admitted the case of the Claimant. The third and fourth Defendants admitted that the Claimant handed the boundary survey plan and layout plan to the family and that a Certificate of Family Land Agreement dated the 15th of April, 2006 as well as a Deed of Assignment dated the 22nd of April, 2006, both conveying 980 plots of the Ifegbuwa family land were executed in favour of the Claimant. The case of the third and fourth Defendants was that the person who executed these documents were not the proper persons to execute the documents on behalf of the family and they did not have the mandate of the Family to do so.
It is clear from the facts deposed to by the parties in the several affidavits filed in this matter that the Ifegbuwa family has three branches – Odufala branch, Odugade branch and the Shofiran branch.
The Certificate of Family Land Agreement dated the 15th of April, 2006 was signed by Mr. Wasiu Bello and Mr. Kareem Alashe as representing the Odufala branch, Mr. A S. Jimoh and Mr. Wasiu Aborishade as representing Odugade branch and Mr. W.K. Ogunwomoju and Chief Taiwo Lamina as representing Shofiran branch and it was also signed by Chief Jimoh Tijani and again by Mr. A. S. Jimoh as head and secretary of the family respectively. The Deed of Assignment dated the 22nd of April, 2006 was also executed by these seven persons described as the head and accredited representatives of the Ifegbuwa family. The third and fourth Defendants deposed that these persons were not the proper persons to sign documents on behalf of the Family but nowhere in their entire affidavits did they list the appropriate persons who should have signed the documents. It is elementary that essential facts in the case of a party cannot be met by a general traverse and where it is intended to join issues with the party on those facts, specific denials and responses must be made to them – Daggash Vs Bulama (2004) 14 NWLR (Pt 892) 144, Balonwu Vs Obi (2007) 5 NWLR (Pt 1028) 488 and Tsemudiara Vs Messrs F G Spiropoulos & Co. Ltd (2008) 7 NWLR (Pt 1085) 84.
The only issue raised in the entire affidavits of the third and fourth Defendant was as regards Chief Jimoh Tijani who was described as the head of family in the Certificate of Family Land Agreement dated the 15th of April, 2006 and in the Deed of Assignment dated the 22nd of April, 2006. The third and fourth Defendants stated that the head of the family was late Chief Kalejaiye Idowu until his death on the 6th of August, 2005 and that the only valid appointment of head of family made thereafter was the appointment of third Defendant as head of family on the 18th of April, 2007 and he was duly capped as such by the Ayangburen of Ikorodu in October of 2007. The Certificate of Family Land Agreement and the Deed of Assignment were both made in April, 2006; at a time when, according to the third and Deed of Assignment were both made in April, 2006; at a time when, according to third and fourth Defendants, the Ifegbuwa Family had no duly appointed head of family. Assuming that the position of the third and fourth Defendants is correct, the law is that a sale of family land effected by the principal members of a family acting for themselves and on behalf of the other members of the family at a time when there is a vacancy in the position of the family head is a valid transaction – Adesanya Vs Otuewu (1993) 1 NWLR (Pt. 270) 414. The third and fourth Defendants have not shown that the other persons who executed the two documents were not the principal members of the family as at April, 2006. So even if the said Chief Jimoh Tijani was wrongly described as head of family and included as a signatory to the documents, it does affect the validity of the two documents as the case of the third and fourth Defendants was that there was a vacancy in the position of head of family at the time, and not that somebody else was head of family at the time. This Court finds and holds that the certificate of Family Land Agreement dated the 15th of April, 2006 and the Deed of Assignment dated the 22nd of April, 2006 were executed by the appropriate officers of the Ifegbuwa family and are valid transactions.
It is settled law that where parties have reduced the terms of an agreement between them into writing, they are bound by the terms of the written agreement and either of them or the court cannot legally and properly read into the agreement terms on which the parties have not agreed and did not agreed. And if and where there is any disagreement as to what the terms of the agreement are or whether a team had been satisfied or not, the authoritative and legal source of information for the purpose of resolving the disagreement is, of course, the written agreement executed by the parties – Agbareh Vs Mimra (2008) 2 NWLR (Pt 1071) 378, Adetoro Vs Union Bank of Nigeria Plc (2008) 13 NWLR (Pt 1104) 255 and Nika Fishing Co. Ltd Vs Lavina Corporation (2008) 16 NWLR (Pt 1114) 509. As a matter of fact, section 132 of the Evidence Act stipulates that the only admissible evidence is the contract itself and no extrinsic evidence will be admissible to vary the terms of the contract – Obajimi Vs Adediji (2008) 3 NWLR (Pt 1073) 1 and Christaben Group Ltd Vs Oni (2008) 11 NWLR (Pt 1097) 84.
The third and fourth Defendants have urged this Court to hold that the Certificate of Family Land Agreement dated the 15th of April, 2006 and the Deed of Assignment dated the 22nd of April, 2006 are not enforceable because the Claimant did not complete the tasks he was given by the Family. They say that the Claimant did not establish the survey pillars and beacons on the land and that he did not give the family any evidence of lodgment of the Red Copy of the survey plan at the office of the Surveyor General and also that the Claimant did not get approval for the change of use of the land. Reading through the opening statement on the second page of the Deed of Assignment dated the 22nd of April, 2006, the family of the Defendants acknowledged clearly that the Claimant had completed the survey tasks given to him such as the preparation of the boundary survey plan, the preparation of the layout plan and the establishment of survey beacons and pillars on the Ifegbuwa Family land. It is not opened to the third and fourth Defendants to seek to plead against these clear statements of the family in the Deed of Assignment. Moreover, it was not stated either in the Deed of Assignment dated the 14th of December, 1999 and/or in the Deed of Assignment dated 22nd of April, 2006 that part of the tasks of the Claimant was to give the family of the Defendant evidence of the lodgment of the Red Copy of the survey plan at the office of the surveyor General neither was a change of use of the land part of the tasks given to the Claimant.
Furthermore, the third and fourth Defendants have not urged this Court by way of a counterclaim to set aside the Certificate of Family Land Agreement dated the 15th of April, 2006 and the Deed of Assignment dated the 22nd of April, 2006. It is an established principle in land litigation that even if a party established circumstances justifying the nullification of document evidencing ownership of land, the Court cannot disregard the document. The courts have consistently held that circumstances which justify the setting aside of a document of ownership of land cannot be used as a defence in an action in trespass when the document which vested exclusive possession in the holder had not itself been set aside and that the proper thing to do was to advance those circumstances in an action to set aside the document; to treat such document as annulled when no such remedy has been sought in the action cannot at all be right – Saude Vs Abdullahi (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt 116) 387 at 416, Titiloye Vs Olupo (1991) 7 NWLR (Pt 205) 519 at 530, Dabup Vs Kolo (1993) 9 NWLR (Pt 317) 254 at 278 B-C, Teniola Vs Olohunkun (1999) 5 NWLR (Pt 602) 280 at 298, Ifeacho Vs Inland Medical Co (Nig) Ltd (2001) 1 NWLR (Pt 639) 105 and Dabo Vs Abdullahi (2005) 7 NWLR (Pt923) 181 at 204 – 205. In other words, even if this Court were to agree with the case made out by the third and fourth Defendants, it cannot disregard the Certificate of Family Land Agreement dated the 15th of April, 2006 and the Deed of Assignment dated the 22nd of April, 2006 as no order seeking to set them aside was sought. This Court holds that the Certificate of Family Land Agreement dated the 15th of April, 2006 and the Deed of Assignment dated the 22nd of April, 2006 are valid and binding agreements on the parties herein. The first issue for determination on the originating summons is thus resolved in favour of the Claimant.
The second issue for determination is whether or not the Claimant is entitled to an order of specific performance of the two agreements. The law is that where there is a contract that its both valid and enforceable and one of the parties thereto defaults in the performance of the contract, the other party has one of two options opened to him and these are (i) to regard the contract as still subsisting and sue for specific performance of the contract or for an injunction where the obligation is a negative one; or (ii) to regard the contract at an end and sue for damages for the breach of it – Anaeze Vs Anyaso (1993) 5 NWLR (Pt 291) 1, Liman Vs Mohammed (1999) 9 NWLR (Pt 617) 116 and Nmegwa Vs Texaco (Nig) Ltd (2005) 18 NWLR (Pt 957) 279. Specific performance is a decree issued by the court which constrains a contracting party to do that which he has promised to do. It is a remedy for breach of contract provided by equity to meet those cases where the common law remedy of damages is inadequate. The equitable doctrine of specific performance is discretionary and the dominant principle has always been that equity will grant specific performance if, under all the circumstances, it is just and equitable to do so. The remedy is available in a variety of contractual relationships but whether or not it will be granted depends on the nature of the contract Universal Vulcanising (Nig) Ltd Vs Ijesha United Trading and Transport Co. Ltd (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt 266) 388, Ohiwerei Vs Okosun (2003) 11 NWLR (Pt 832) 463, Gaji Vs Paye (2003) 8 NWLR (PT 823) 583, First Bank of Nigeria Plc Vs Akinyosoye (2005) 5 NWLR (Pt 918) 340 and Governor of Ekiti State Vs Ojo (2006) 17 NWLR (Pt 1007) 95 at 126F.
A decree or an order of specific performance is a form of relief that is purely equitable in origin and the fundamental rule is that specific performance will not be ordered or decreed if there is an absolute remedy at law in answer to the claimant’s claim, as, for instance, where the claimant would be adequately compensated by the common law remedy of damages. The jurisdiction in specific performance is therefore anchored on the inadequacy of the remedy of damages at law – Afrotec Technical Services (Nig) Ltd Vs MIA & Sons Ltd (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt 692) 730, Ezenwa Vs Oko (2008) 3 NWLR (Pt 1075) 610. The contracts in the instant case deal with transfer of interest in land. The courts recognize that while damages might be adequate remedy in other contracts, in contracts relating to transfer of interest in land, the general rule is that damages are not an adequate remedy for a breach of contract. Thus, our courts have consistently held that in a case involving sale of land, damages cannot adequately compensate a party for breach of a contract for sale of an interest in a particular piece of land or in a particular house – Universal (Nig) Ltd Vs Ijesha United Trading and Transport Co. Ltd (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt 266) 388, Anaeze Vs Anyaso (1993) 5 NWLR (Pt 291) 1, Best (Nig) Limited Vs Blackwood Hodge (Nig) Ltd (2001) 10 NWLR (Pt 720) 35, Gaji Vs Paye (2003) 8 NWLR (Pt 823) 583, Ohiwerei Vs Okosun (2003) 11 NWLR (Pt 832) 463. The preference is for an order of specific performance – Ohiaeri Vs Yusuf (2004) 1 NWLR (Pt 855) 548, First Bank of Nigeria Plc Vs Akinyosoye (2005) 5 NWLR (Pt 918) 340. In Ezenwa Vs Oko (2008) 3 NWLR (Pt 1075) 610, the Supreme Court per Onnoghen, JSC stated thus at page 628 A-B:
“… where there is a subsisting contract or agreement for the sale or lease of land, the court, being also a court of equity, is always inclined to grant specific performance, because the land being sold or leased may have a peculiar value or significance to the purchaser or lessee, particularly where it is a choice land in a busy commercial center of the town…”
The Claimant is thus entitled to an order of specific performance of the Certificate of Family Land Agreement dated the 15th of April, 2006 and the Deed of Assignment dated the 22nd of April, 2006. The second issue is resolved in favour of the Claimant.
The third issue for determination on the Originating Possession Summons is whether the Claimant and/or his privies are entitled to a quiet enjoyment and peaceable of the 980 plots of land within the Ifegbuwa family land in Imowo Nla Village which were conveyed by the Certificate of Family Land Agreement dated the 15th of April, 2006 and the Deed of Assignment dated the 22nd of April, 2006. One of the guarantees that a transfer of ownership of land assures the transferee is that he will have a quiet enjoyment and peaceable possession of the land so transferred and this guarantee also enures to the benefit of those who obtain title to the land from the transferee. Thus, the courts have always maintained that one of the eternal attributes of ownership of land is peaceable possession and quiet enjoyment of the land and that anyone who is on the land without the permission of the owner is a trespasser ab initio – Ayoola Vs Adebayo (1969) 1 all NLR 159, Amakor Vs Obiefuna (1974) 3 SC 67, Adebo Vs Saki Estates Ltd (1999) 7 NWLR (Pt 612) 505, Onagoruwa Vs Akinremi (2001) 13 NWLR (Pt 729) 38, Dabo Vs Abdullahi (2005) 7 NWLR (Pt 923) 181 and Okoko Vs Dakolo (2006) 14 NWLR (Pt 1000) 401. The Claimant and/or his privies are thus entitled to a quiet enjoyment and peaceable possession of the 980 plot of land within the Ifegbuwa family land in Imowo Nla Village. The third issue is also resolved in favour of the Claimant.
The fourth issue for determination is whether the Claimant and/or his privies are entitled to an order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants and other members of the Ifegbuwa Family from interfering with and/or disturbing the quiet enjoyment and peaceable possession of the Claimant and his privies of the 980 plots of land. An injunction is an ancillary relief in the sense that it complements a cause of action. It is rarely granted on its own as a sole relief. Rather, it is granted to enforce a right which the court granting the injunction has first decreed or recognized in its judgment; it is to ensure that such a right is not violated. It cannot stand on its own unrelated to any acknowledged right. In effect, it is a consequential relief used only as an accompaniment to a pre-ascertained principal relief – Olagbegi Vs Ogunoye II (1996) 5 NWLR (Pt 448) 332, Daewoo (Nig) Ltd Vs Hazcon (Nig) Ltd (1998) 7 NWLR (Pt 558) 438, Nigerian National Petroleum Corp. Vs AIC Limited (2003) 2 NWLR (Pt 805) 560, Nwaknwo Vs Ononoeze – Madu (2005) 4 NWLR (Pt 916) 470. In other words, the courts will cause an injunction to issue only in support of a legal right or a threatened right. Where there is no legal right or a threat of violation to a right, a claimant would not be entitled to an injunction – Attorney General, Abia State Vs Attorney General of the Federation (2005) 12 NWLR (Pt 940) 452, Nwannewuihe Vs Nwannewuihe (2007) 16 NWLR (Pt 1059) 1.
The position of case law authorities is that where a party has be adjudged to be in peaceable possession or to be entitled to peaceable possession of land, the court can, and should, grant an order of injunction as a consequential relief to protect the right of the party even where it is not claimed by the claimant – Oyadare Vs Keji (2005) 7 NWLR (Pt 925) 517, Enunwa Vs Obianukor (2005) 11 NWLR (Pt 935) 100, Briggs Vs The Chief Lands Officer of Rivers State of Nigeria (2005) 12 NWLR (Pt 938) 59, Enugu State Civil Service Commission Vs Geofrey (2006) 18 NWLR (Pt 1011) 293, Amori Vs Iyanda (2008) 3 NWLR (Pt 1074) 250. This Court having found that the Claimant and/or his privies are entitled to the peaceable possession of the 980 plots of land, they are entitled to the order of perpetual injunction claimed. The fourth issue is similarly resolved in favour of the Claimant.
Before concluding this judgement, this Court considers it pertinent to comment on the processes filed by the parties in this suit. One of the cardinal principles of good advocacy is the ability to sift through, identify and isolate the facts essential to a cause of action and to rigorously marshal these facts in the processes filed before the court on the cause of action. It is not a mark of good advocacy to plead crass, irrelevant and useless facts which will not assist the Court in resolving the issues arising for determination in a suit. This Court has stated many times that litigation is not a long essay competition that is won or lost on the length of the processes filed. The outcome of litigation is determined by the quality and precision of the facts averred by a party. The parties in this suit inundated this court with useless and irrelevant facts particularly in the counter affidavit of the first and second Defendants, the counter affidavit of the third and fourth defendants, the reply of the Claimant to the counter affidavit of the third and fourth Defendants, the reply of the third and fourth Defendants to the counter affidavit of the first and second Defendants and in the sur reply of the third and fourth Defendants. The facts concerning the origin of the crisis in the Ifegbuwa family and the after math thereof were completely irrelevant facts in this matter. They sought to becloud the otherwise simple facts necessary for the determination of the issues raised on the originating summons. Counsel are advised to take more care in the preparation of court processes, otherwise simple matters will be buried under debris of irrelevant facts that can take years to unravel.
In conclusion, this Court finds and holds that the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs claimed in this suit. Judgment is hereby entered as follows:
- It is hereby declared that the Ifegbuwa family of Imowo Nla’s Certificate of Occupancy of Family Land Agreement dated the 15th of April, 2006; and the Deed of Assignment dated the 22nd of April, 2006 are valid and binding agreements between the Claimant and the Ifegbuwa family of Imowo Nla Village, Ikorodu.
- An order of specific performance is hereby made directing the Ifegbuwa Family of Imowo Nla Village, Ikorodu to give effect to the Ifegbuwa family of Imowo Nla’s Certificate of Occupancy of Family Land Agreement dated the 15th of April, 2006; and the Deed of Assignment dated the 22nd of April, 2006 duly executed between the parties by granting the Claimant undisturbed and unhindered access to the 980 plots of land within the Ifegbuwa family land in Imowo Nla village granted to him under the agreements.
iii. It is hereby declared that the Claimant and/or his privies are entitled to the quiet enjoyment and peaceable possession of the said 980 plots of land within the Ifegbuwa family land in Imowo Nla Village granted to him by the Ifegbuwa Family of Imowo Nla.
- An order of perpetual injunction is hereby made restraining the Defendants and other members of the Ifegbuwa Family from interfering with and/or disturbing the quiet enjoyment and peaceable possession of the Claimant and of his privies of the 980 plots of land within the Ifegbuwa family land at Imowo Nla Village, Ikorodu which was granted to the Claimant.
These shall be the orders of the Courts
Dated the 12th of October, 2009
Honorable Justice H. A O. Abiru
Mr. Akin Duyilemi with T. Anibaba, B. Shomade & Kunle Oyejola – for the Claimant
Mr. Olu Otayomi with Mrs. T. A. Shotobi Banjo -for the first and second Defendants
Mr. S. O. K Owoshile with Mrs. Blessing Eneh -for the third and fourth Defendants