SUIT NO: HOW/434/2013 & SUIT NO: HOW/540/2013- CHARLES IWUDIBIA V UCHE PARURE & CHIDI PARURE -Revocation of certificate of Occupancy- Use of Force-Duress, Undue Influence, or Misrepresentation, Mistake, Illegality, Unconscionability- The responsibility to apply for joinder

IN THE HIGH COURT OF IMO STATE OF NIGERIA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF OWERRI JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, OWERRI

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: – HON. JUSTICE I. M. NJAKA

 

THIS TUESDAY THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024

SUIT NO: HOW/434/2013

SUIT NO: HOW/540/2013

BETWEEN

1. CHARLES IWUDIBIA ——————————-PLAINTIFF

 

AND

 

1. UCHE PARURE
2. CHIDI PARURE ———————————-DEFENDANT

 

AND

 

1. UCHE PARURE

2.CHIDI PARURE ———————————- —PLAINTIFFS

 

AND

 

1. CHARLES IWUDIBIA——————————DEFENDANT

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

Thia is a reassigned matter. The Plaintiff Dr. Felix O. Iwudibia, (late) commenced Suit No. HOW/434/2013 on June 18, 2013 through Originating Summons, seeking judicial interpretation and declaratory reliefs regarding the following issues:

1. The Revocation of Rights of Occupancy Order 2004, issued by the Governor of Imo State, Chief Achike Udenwa, on November 5, 2004.
2. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Plaintiff and the Defendants (dated August 4, 2004).
3. The Plaintiff’s rightful ownership of Plot 17, Clerks Quarters, Owerri, Imo State.

 

Due to the contentious nature of the case, the Plaintiff later filed a Statement of Claim on April 30, 2018, seeking the following key reliefs:

1. A declaration that the Defendants and the Guno Parure family have no subsisting interest in Plot 17.
2. A declaration that the Defendants are barred from any further claims to Plot 17.
3. A declaration that Plot 17 is vested in Dr. Felix O. Iwudibia.
4. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from making any claims over Plot 17.

 

On the other hand, the Defendants, who became the Plaintiffs in Suit No. HOW/540/2013, initially filed under the undefended list seeking monetary claims. They later converted the suit to a general cause under a Statement of Claim (filed on March 24, 2016), seeking the following:

1. The sum of N18, 714, 492.20743 as the amount accruing from the Defendant’s indebtedness and the accrued interest thereon until 2016.
2. 21 % interest from the date of the judgement till the final liquidation of the entire debt.

Alternatively,

3. A declaration that the Plaintiffs are entitled to the statutory right of occupancy over Plot 17, Clerks Quarters Owerri
4. An order of the Court setting aside the Certificate of Occupancy issued or made in favour of the Defendant over plot No 17 Clerks Quarters Owerri.

 

The two suits were consolidated on July 16, 2015 wherein Dr. Charles Iwudibia retains plaintiff while 1. Uche Parure 2. Chidi Parure are the defendants.

 

Plaintiff’s case:

The Plaintiff’s Witness 1 (PW1), Dr. Felix Onyebuchi Iwudibia, in his Evidence in Chief introduces himself as a medical practitioner specializing in radiology, residing at No. 1 Iwudibia Close, New Owerri. He affirms that he knows the Defendant and confirms that he made a written deposition dated 30th April 2018, which he adopts as his evidence in the case. PW1 refers to paragraph 3(a) of his written deposition, in which he mentioned the allocation of a right of occupancy. He states that he can recognize the document if presented. Counsel for the Plaintiff, Nwaigwe, seeks to tender the right of occupancy document into evidence. The Defendant’s counsel objects, arguing that the document is a public document and not properly certified as required under Section 104 of the Evidence Act 2011 (as amended). The certification on the document, made by the Assistant Chief Registrar of the Court, is challenged, with the objection that this individual is not the proper authority to certify it. Plaintiff’s counsel withdraws the document from the tender.

 

PW1 refers to paragraph 4 of his claim, where he mentions the original Certificate of Occupancy (C of O). He states that he can recognize it if presented. Plaintiff’s counsel applies to tender the C of O. Initially, the Defendant objects, claiming that the document was not pleaded, but later withdraws the objection when it is established that the C of O was pleaded in paragraph 11 of the Plaintiff’s claim. The court admits the Certificate of Occupancy into evidence, marking it Exhibit A.

 

PW1 mentions the Memorandum of Settlement referred to in paragraph 12 of his statement. He recognizes the document when presented and seeks to tender it. The Defendant’s counsel raises no objection. The Memorandum of Settlement is admitted into evidence and marked Exhibit B.

 

PW1 further clarifies that the Memorandum of Settlement was filed in court as part of an out-of-court agreement. The Defendant objects, arguing there is no indication the Memorandum of Settlement was actually filed in court. Plaintiff’s counsel counters that the document is pleaded, frontloaded, and relevant. The court rules that the question of whether the document was filed in court or not is a matter of evidence that affects the weight to be attached to it, but since it is pleaded and relevant, it is admitted into evidence as Exhibit C.

 

PW1 refers to paragraph 11 of his deposition, where he mentions Suit No. HOW/121/2005. He identifies the court proceedings related to this suit. PW1 seeks to tender the court proceedings in evidence. The Defendant’s counsel raises no objection. The proceedings are admitted and marked Exhibit D.

 

PW1 mentions the Revocation Order issued by the Government of Imo State in 2004, referred to in his deposition. He identifies the document and seeks to tender it. The Defendant’s counsel raises no objection. The Revocation of Right of Occupancy Order, 2004 is admitted into evidence and marked Exhibit E.

 

PW1 refers to paragraph 17 of his deposition, where he mentioned the court’s proceedings in Suit No. HOW/511/2008, which he identifies and seeks to tender. The Defendant objects on the grounds that the suit number itself is not a sufficient pleading for the document to be admitted. The argument is that the document must be explicitly pleaded, not just the suit number. The court finds that paragraph 17 sufficiently refers to the suit and its outcome (being struck out), and the document aligns with the paragraph. The court rejects the objection and admits the proceedings in Suit No. HOW/511/2008 into evidence as Exhibit F.

 

PW1 refers to paragraph 18 of his deposition, where he mentions a letter written to him. He identifies the letter when presented and seeks to tender it. The objection is based on the certification of the document. The Defendant argues that the authority certifying the letter is not the proper authority. Plaintiff’s counsel counters that the letter was filed in court and, therefore, becomes the property of the court. Thus, the court is the appropriate authority to certify the document. The court agrees with the Plaintiff and overrules the objection, admitting the letter into evidence as Exhibit G.

 

In his deposition Chief Dr. Iwudibia identifies himself as the Plaintiff in the HOW/434/2013 and the Defendant in HOW/540/2013. This case has been consolidated with the present one by an order of the Court. He adopts all the facts from his affidavit supporting the Originating Summons and his Statement of Claim as part of his current deposition.

 

Dr. Iwudibia argues that these documents, particularly the Revocation Order, the Certificate of Occupancy, and the out-of-court settlement, are central to resolving the dispute. He believes that these documents confirm his rightful ownership of the land and should lead to the dismissal of the Defendant’s claims. Dr. Iwudibia asserts that the related case (HOW/540/2013) filed by the Defendants is an abuse of the court’s process. According to him, this case is redundant since the parties already reached a settlement in HOW/121/2005, which was subsequently struck out by the court.

 

He firmly believes that he is entitled to his claim in this case and that the Defendant’s claim should be dismissed. Dr. Iwudibia emphasizes that the Defendants no longer have any legal interest in the subject matter (the land) due to the settlement. Dr. Iwudibia details that he and the Defendants met, resolved the dispute over the land, and he paid them an agreed sum to settle all outstanding issues. This agreement was documented and submitted to the court, which led to the court striking out the related case.

 

Despite the settlement and the striking out of the previous case, Dr. Iwudibia expresses surprise that the Defendants have now initiated a new lawsuit regarding the same land. He views this as improper and abusive, as the Defendants had agreed they had no further interest in the land. Therefore, he argues, their case should be dismissed, and he should be granted judgment in his favor.

 

Plaintiff’s counsel requests that four documents lumped under Exhibit D be separated and marked individually. The Defendant raises no objection. The court separates the documents and marks them as follows: Exhibit D Proceedings in Suit No. HOW/121/2005 dated 17-5-2005, Exhibit D1 Conditional Appearance, Exhibit D2 Writ of Summons, Exhibit D3 Proceedings of 20-10-2005 in Suit No. HOW/121/2005.

 

After the admission of the various documents, the Plaintiff’s counsel concludes the examination of PW1 in chief.

Evidence Admitted:

1. Certificate of Occupancy – Exhibit A.
2. Memorandum of Settlement- Exhibit B.
3. Court Proceedings in HOW/121/2005 – Exhibit D, D1, D2, D3.
4. Revocation of Right of Occupancy Order, 2004 – Exhibit E.
5. Proceedings in Suit No. HOW/511/2008- Exhibit F.
6. Letter dated 8-10-2012 – Exhibit G.

 

Under Cross-Examination by Nwakaeti Esq, PW1 confirms that he purchased the land in dispute from late Guno Parure, the father of the Defendant, for N2,800,000. Nwakaeti challenges this figure, suggesting that N100,000 of the amount was actually an agency fee, which PW1 denies, stating that no agency fees were mentioned, and the total payment to Guno Parure was N2,800,000. PW1 testifies that he took possession of the land immediately after the transaction, in 2003. Nwakaeti questions PW1 about issues regarding obtaining a fencing permit. PW1 explains that although he paid for the fencing permit, the General Manager of OCDA stopped him, requesting a survey print signed by the Surveyor General of Imo State.

 

PW1 confirms that on October 9, 2003, he wrote a letter to the Commissioner for Lands complaining about the delay in issuing a survey print. This letter was tendered as Exhibit H without objection. Nwakaeti accuses PW1 of falsely claiming that there were issues with the land when none existed, in order to demand a refund from late Guno Parure. PW1 denies this, stating that the Commissioner of Lands confirmed that the name associated with the land, Ike Isogwu, was fictitious, and the Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) tied to the land was fraudulent. PW1 maintains that this issue led to a refund of N2.7 million from late Guno Parure, and N100,000 was deducted for certain reasons.

 

Nwakaeti argues that PW1 only adopted his written deposition related to Suit No. HOW/434/2013, where he is the Plaintiff, and not the deposition for HOW/540/2013, where he is the Defendant. PW1’s counsel responds that the suits are consolidated, and to expedite the matter, all depositions should be adopted. The court permits the deposition for HOW/540/2013 to be deemed adopted in the interest of justice.

 

PW1 acknowledges receiving a letter from the Ministry of Lands, dated February 14, 2005, but disputes whether it was a direct reply to his earlier application for land. This letter is tendered and admitted as Exhibit H1. Nwakaeti suggests that PW1 conspired with the Ministry of Lands to secure allocation of Plot 17 by relying on a fraudulent revocation order. PW1 denies this, stating that the revocation order was genuine and signed by the Governor of Imo State.

 

PW1 confirms that he was refunded N2.7 million in two installments by late Guno Parure after the land dispute surfaced. However, Nwakaeti suggests that PW1 connived with the Ministry of Lands to reclaim the land after being refunded. PW1 denies this, stating that the land was part of a general revocation process and that he legally reapplied for the land. PW1 admits that he filled out a form when applying for the land after the revocation. Nwakaeti points out that PW1 did not retain a copy of this application, which PW1 acknowledges, explaining that the forms were returned to the Ministry after submission.

 

PW1 confirms that the out-of-court settlement (Exhibit B) was prepared in his lawyer’s office and involved discussions with the Defendants. Nwakaeti questions whether the Defendant’s lawyer, Dr. Ohamere, was present during the settlement, and PW1 admits that while Ohamere initially represented the Defendant, he later withdrew from the case. Nwakaeti alleges that Exhibit B was concocted to deny the Defendant the use of their land after the death of their father. PW1 denies this, stating that the settlement was legitimate.

 

PW1 acknowledges that late Guno Parure executed a Power of Attorney in his favor, and it was subsequently registered in 2007. Nwakaeti seeks to tender this Power of Attorney as evidence. However, PW1’s counsel objects on the grounds that it was not frontloaded or pleaded. The court rules that the document can be admitted since it was mentioned in earlier statements and is relevant to the land transaction, admitting it as Exhibit J.

 

PW1 previously testified that he spent N1.5 million on securing Plot 17, including payments for development fees, security guards, and police protection against harassment from the seller’s family. PW1 maintains that these expenditures were necessary due to difficulties faced in securing the land. Nwakaeti challenges this, suggesting that PW1 never made such expenditures. PW1 stands by his testimony, asserting that the breakdown of the expenses was detailed in the out-of-court settlement.

 

Nwakaeti accuses PW1 of withholding critical documents related to the land transaction after collecting his refund. PW1 denies this, asserting that he returned all documents to late Guno Parure upon receiving the refund. Nwakaeti questions whether individuals like Emma Anyanwu were involved in preparing Exhibit B. PW1 clarifies that Anyanwu was not part of the settlement discussions.

 

Throughout the cross-examination, Nwakaeti questions PW1’s credibility, suggesting that he fabricated or manipulated documents and colluded with government officials to secure the land. PW1 denies these allegations, standing by the validity of his actions and the documents presented.

 

Examination in Chief of PW2

PW2, Surveyor Patrick Okafor, introduces himself as a staff member of the Ministry of Lands and confirms that he appeared in court on subpoena. The Plaintiff’s counsel, Nwaigwe, tenders the subpoena in court, and it is admitted as Exhibit K. PW2 adopts his written deposition as his testimony in court. Nwakaeti Esq, the Defendant’s counsel, objects to PW2 (a subpoenaed witness) tendering documents. He argues that a subpoenaed witness is typically called either to produce documents (duces tecum) or to testify (ad testificandum), but not both. He further argues that PW2 was subpoenaed only to give evidence and not to tender documents.

 

Nwaigwe, representing the Plaintiff, counters that PW2 was subpoenaed under ad testificandum, allowing him to both testify and tender documents. Moreover, the documents have already been admitted as exhibits, and PW2 is simply identifying them as originating from his office. The court overrules the objection and permits PW2 to identify the documents, ruling that a subpoenaed witness who is sworn in and examined can testify and identify documents that are relevant to the case.

 

PW2 identifies the following documents as originating from his office: Exhibit E: The Revocation of Right of Occupancy Order, 2004. Exhibit A: The Certificate of Occupancy issued to Dr. Iwudibia. Exhibit H1: A letter from the Ministry of Lands. The counsel then concludes the examination in chief of PW2

 

In PW2’s Written Deposition, Surveyor Patrick Okafor, a staff member of the Ministry of Lands, PW2 confirms that he is familiar with the Clerks Quarters area, located off Okigwe Road, Owerri, which includes the land in dispute. He states that in 2004, the Governor of Imo State, Chief Achike Udenwa, set up a committee to investigate land allocation fraud in Clerks Quarters. Based on the committee’s report, the Governor issued a public order revoking the affected plots, which was published in newspapers and gazetted as Public Notice in the Imo State Legal Notice (ISLN) of 2004.

 

PW2 highlights that Plot No. 17 Clerks Quarters, the land in dispute, was one of the plots affected by the revocation order. He identifies the specific gazette that bears the revocation, dated 5th November 2004, signed by the Governor of Imo State.

 

Following the revocation, Plot 17 was reallocated to Dr. Felix Iwudibia (the Plaintiff), and he was issued a Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) by the Government. PW2 confirms that no challenges were made against the revocation order, and Dr. Iwudibia is the current and only owner of the plot.

 

Under Cross Examination of PW2 by Nwakaeti Esq., PW2 confirms that Exhibit H1 is a letter issued by the Ministry of Lands. PW2 acknowledges that Exhibit H is a letter written by Dr. Felix Iwudibia (Plaintiff) to the Ministry of Lands. Paragraph 3 of Exhibit H is read aloud, and PW2 confirms its contents.

 

Nwakaeti Esq., suggests that the Ministry’s investigation into the land was triggered by the Plaintiff’s letter (Exhibit H). PW2 states that he cannot confirm if the investigation was triggered specifically by this letter.

 

PW2 reads the first and second lines of Exhibit H1 and agrees that it was written in response to Exhibit H. He further confirms that Exhibit H1 states that the land (Plot 17) has no issues. Nwakaeti asserts that Exhibit H was not an application for allocation of the land, and PW2 agrees, confirming that it was not an application for allocation.

 

PW2 confirms that Plot 17 was among the plots affected by the 2004 revocation order issued by the Governor of Imo State due to fraudulent land allocations. The land was reallocated to the Plaintiff, Dr. Felix Iwudibia, who was issued a Certificate of Occupancy by the Ministry of Lands.

PW2 identifies crucial documents:

– Exhibit E: The Revocation Order of 2004.

– Exhibit A: The Certificate of Occupancy issued to the Plaintiff.

– Exhibit H1: A letter from the Ministry of Lands confirming the Plaintiff’s ownership of the land.

 

PW2 confirms that the Ministry of Lands’ investigation was likely triggered by Dr. Iwudibia’s letter (Exhibit H), although he cannot definitively confirm this. He also agrees that Exhibit H1 was written in response to Exhibit H and states that the land had no problems.

 

Defendants’ case

In his Examination in Chief of Uche Parure adopts his written depositions in both HOW/434/2013 (where he is the Defendant) and HOW/540/2013 (where he is the Plaintiff). Uche tenders a newspaper publication from the Daily Champion regarding the land, which is admitted as Exhibit M.

In his adopted Witness Statement on Oath of Uche Parure as Defendant in Suit No. HOW/434/2013, Uche denies any MOU granting the Plaintiff, Dr. Felix Iwudibia, ownership of the land. He insists that the Plaintiff’s claim to the land is fraudulent, based on an induced Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) from familiar contacts in the Ministry of Lands.

 

He admits that his late father, Guno Parure, sold the land to Dr. Iwudibia in 2003 for N2,800,000. However, when the Plaintiff faced difficulties in registering his building plan, he requested a refund, which Guno granted, refunding N2,700,000 in two installments. After receiving the refund, Uche accuses the Plaintiff of holding onto the land documents handed over during the original sale, despite no longer having an interest in the land. Uche claims that after the refund, Dr. Iwudibia applied for a fraudulent reallocation of Plot 17 under the guise of a government advertisement of vacant lands, which was never published. Uche maintains that the Plaintiff fabricated the revocation and reallocation to take over the land.

 

After the death of Guno Parure, the Plaintiff resumed construction on the land, claiming that it had been reallocated to him by the government. Uche alleges that the Plaintiff used police and thugs to prevent the Parure family from accessing the land. He also states that the Plaintiff promised to refund N2,700,000 but only paid N800,000, leaving a balance of N1,900,000. Uche denies that the terms of settlement were entered as a judgment in the earlier suit (HOW/121/2015) and contends that the Plaintiff has failed to pay the balance of the agreed compensation. The family initiated legal action to recover the remaining balance and accrued interest.

 

In his Written Deposition in Suit No. HOW/540/2013 Uche Parure as the Plaintiff, reaffirms much of the same facts from the previous case. Uche confirms that his late father sold the land to the Defendant, Dr. Iwudibia, in 2003 for N2,800,000. The Plaintiff requested a refund later due to difficulties in registering the land. Uche states that his father refunded N2,700,000 in two installments, and the Defendant held onto the land documents after receiving the refund. Uche claims that Dr. Iwudibia fraudulently applied for a reallocation of Plot 17 after the refund, despite the land never being advertised by the government.

 

After his father’s death, Uche states that Dr. Iwudibia resumed construction on the land and used police and thugs to block their access. The Defendant paid N800,000 towards compensation, leaving a balance of N1,900,000. Uche claims that as of 2015, the Defendant’s total indebtedness, with accrued interest, had risen to N18,714,492.20.

 

Under Cross-Examination of Uche Parure by NBE Nwaigwe Esq Uche Parure confirms that he was present during part of the transaction between his father and the Plaintiff. However, he travelled in April 2004 and was not present when his father died in May 2004. Uche denies any suggestion of a poor relationship with his father, affirming that his father personally took him to the airport on the day he travelled.

 

Uche stated that the land was sold to his father by Emma Anyiam, who purchased it from Martha Soronadi, who in turn purchased it from Engr. Ike Ezeobi. Uche admits that he transferred the land to Dr. Iwudibia but claims not to know how the Defendant obtained a Certificate of Occupancy from the government. He acknowledges that his father had a C of O transferred to him from Anyiam.

 

Uche denies knowledge of the revocation order issued by the government in 2004. When shown Exhibit E, which contains the revocation details, Uche claims he is unaware of the document and disputes the revocation of his plot. Uche admits that Dr. Iwudibia paid him N800,000 in two installments but claims that this payment was not a full settlement. He denies any formal settlement agreement with the Defendant and insists that the balance of N1,900,000 remains unpaid. Uche provides an account of being coerced into signing a document while in police custody, where he was promised bail in exchange for signing an agreement. He alleges that Dr. Iwudibia used this opportunity to force him into a settlement.

 

Uche denies signing any legitimate terms of settlement and disputes the validity of Exhibit B (the out-of-court settlement). He claims that the document was signed under duress, during a period when he was dealing with police detention and the death of his mother. Uche acknowledges filing previous lawsuits against the Defendant, including Suit HOW/121/2005 and Suit HOW/511/2008, but denies acknowledging certain settlements as legitimate. He insists that these cases were either discontinued or not properly resolved due to external factors, such as the death of his lawyer.

 

Uche is questioned about his claim that his father’s title to the land was fraudulent, to which he responds by insisting that they had agreed on a settlement of N2.7 million, of which only N800,000 was paid.

 

At the close of evidence counsel filed and exchange final written address

 

The Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Final Address in Suit No. HOW/434/2013 (Consolidated with HOW/540/2013)

 

The learned senior counsel, stated Dr. Felix O. Iwudibia purchased Plot 17, Clerks Quarters, Owerri from Guno Parure (father of the Defendants), who had allegedly derived title from Emma Anyiam. During an investigation, it was discovered that Guno Parure’s title to the land was defective, as the allocation was tainted by fraud. The Imo State Government revoked the land’s title via the Revocation Order 2004. PW1 contended that Guno Parure did not protest the revocation because he was aware his title was void from the beginning, having been deceived by Emma Anyiam. After the revocation, Dr. Iwudibia was refunded his purchase money and reapplied for the land. By coincidence, the government reallocated the same Plot 17 to him, and he was issued a valid Certificate of Occupancy. Despite having obtained valid title, Dr. Iwudibia, out of long-standing friendship with the Parure family, compensated them with N800,000, as documented in the Memorandum of Understanding and Settlement Out of Court.

 

The counsel itemized the exhibits tendered and stated that the Claimant established that they hold the statutory right of occupancy over Plot 17, and no financial indebtedness exists between them and the Defendants. The Plaintiff’s ownership is reinforced by the Revocation Order and subsequent reallocation of the land.

 

Counsel also reviewed the evidence of the PW2 Surveyor Patrick Okafo. According to him PW2, a staff member of the Ministry of Lands, testified under subpoena, confirming that the government had revoked fraudulent land allocations in Clerks Quarters, including Plot 17. PW2 provided credible evidence, identifying Exhibit E (Revocation Order), Exhibit A (Certificate of Occupancy), and Exhibit H1 (Ministry of Lands letter), corroborating PW1’s testimony. The Revocation Order was lawfully issued, and Plot 17 was subsequently allocated to Dr. Iwudibia after due process.

 

The counsel also summarized the case of the defendant. According to him, DW1, the Defendant (and Plaintiff in HOW/540/2013), claimed that his father, Guno Parure, held valid title to Plot 17, having acquired it from Emma Anyiam, who in turn derived title from others. DW1 argued that the government never revoked his family’s statutory right of occupancy and alleged that Dr. Iwudibia’s Certificate of Occupancy was fraudulent. However, the Defendants failed to plead or provide evidence to substantiate the claim of fraud.

 

He stated that DW1 acknowledged that Dr. Iwudibia purchased the land in 2003 for N2,800,000 and later requested a refund due to difficulties with the land. According to DW1, his father refunded N2,700,000, but Dr. Iwudibia continued to hold the land documents. DW1 claimed that Dr. Iwudibia later reapplied for the land under false pretenses, without paying the family the full compensation of N2,700,000, leaving an unpaid balance of N1,900,000 (only N800,000 was allegedly paid).

 

Further he stated that under cross-examination, DW1 admitted that the government revoked allocations in Clerks Quarters, but insisted that Plot 17 was not among those affected. DW1’s testimony was inconsistent, especially regarding the Out of Court Settlement (Exhibit B). He claimed that he was coerced into signing it while in police custody, a claim not substantiated with any evidence. DW1’s credibility was further questioned when he could not explain the government’s revocation process or why his plot would be exempted.

 

In conclusion, the Plaintiff’s counsel argued that: The Revocation Order was valid and lawfully executed by the Imo State Government. Dr. Iwudibia legally reapplied for Plot 17 after the revocation and was issued a valid Certificate of Occupancy. The Plaintiff compensated the Defendants’ family in good faith, despite their title being fraudulent. The Defendants’ claim of outstanding indebtedness was unsubstantiated, and their evidence, especially the testimony of DW1, was inconsistent and lacked credibility. The Plaintiff is entitled to the declaratory reliefs sought, and the court should dismiss the Defendant’s claims of financial indebtedness.

 

The Plaintiff’s counsel urged the court to find in favor of the Plaintiff (Dr. Felix O. Iwudibia) and declare him the rightful owner of Plot 17, Clerks Quarters, Owerri.

 

The Plaintiff’s counsel in his address eply on the Issue of the Existence of Defect in the Title of Guno Parure. The Plaintiff’s counsel argues that the contentions made by the Defendant’s counsel in paragraphs 3.05, 3.06, and 3.07 are misplaced. The Plaintiff has led evidence showing that the title derived by Mr. Emma Anyiam, who transferred the land to Guno Parure (the Defendants’ father), was defective. The Imo State Government revoked this title based on findings of fraudulent land allocations. The Plaintiff’s father, Dr. Felix Iwudibia, confirmed this in his deposition, stating:- He initially bought the land from Guno Parure. -It was later discovered that Emma Anyiam had fraudulently acquired the land from corrupt individuals in the Ministry of Lands, prompting both the Plaintiff and Guno Parure to demand refunds. While Guno Parure refunded the Plaintiff, Anyiam failed to return Guno Parure’s money.

 

The Plaintiff asserts that this case is distinct from compulsory acquisition. It revolves around the Imo State Government’s revocation of fraudulent land allocations. Since Guno Parure never had valid title, there was no basis for compensation. The Revocation Order allowed those affected to contest the decision, but Guno Parure did not object, confirming the lack of a valid title. The order stated:- Any affected person could submit a claim to the Commissioner for Lands within six weeks, providing evidence of any right or interest in the plot.

 

The Plaintiff emphasizes that the revocation concerned illegal allocations. Guno Parure had no valid title and failed to challenge the revocation. This supports the Plaintiff’s claim that the Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) issued to Dr. Iwudibia was lawful, and the Defendants had no legitimate title to Plot 17.

 

Under cross-examination, PW1 consistently stated that Guno Parure lacked valid title to the land. When asked if there were issues with the land, PW1 affirmed that there were indeed problems, which is why Guno Parure refunded him.

 

The Plaintiff further addresses the argument that Dr. Iwudibia connived with the Ministry of Lands to reclaim the land through a fictitious revocation. This claim is countered by PW1, who explained under cross-examination that:- Plot 17 was revoked along with other plots.- He legally reapplied for four plots, including Plot 17, and was subsequently allocated Plot 17 by the government.

 

PW1 also confirmed that he returned the application forms to the Ministry after filling them out, a standard procedure at the time.

 

The Plaintiff refutes the Defendant’s misinterpretation of Exhibit H1, which was presented as evidence. PW2 never admitted that there were no issues with the land, and Exhibit H1 does not support such a claim. Citing Gwede v. Delta State House of Assembly (2019) and Ecobank Nig. Plc v. Kunle (2019), the Plaintiff asserts that documents speak for themselves and cannot be interpreted to suggest something not explicitly stated within them. The Defendants failed to challenge the Plaintiff’s assertion that Emma Anyiam fraudulently acquired the land. The Plaintiff argues that the Defendants should have called Emma Anyiam as a witness to establish their title but failed to do so.

 

The Plaintiff addresses the Defendant’s claims that DW1 was coerced into signing the Out of Court Settlement (Exhibit B). This claim, along with allegations of fraud, was not pleaded in the Defendants’ Amended Statement of Claim in Suit No. HOW/540/2013 and should therefore be deemed as abandoned. Citing Ehimen v. Benin Electricity Distribution Co. Plc (2016), the Plaintiff argues that evidence not pleaded goes to no issue.

 

The Plaintiff reiterates that N800,000 was paid as full and final settlement between the parties. Under cross-examination, DW1 confirmed receiving this amount. Exhibit B (Out of Court Settlement) clearly states that N800,000 was agreed upon as full and final settlement, contrary to the Defendant’s claims of an unpaid balance. The Plaintiff disputes the Defendant’s claim that Exhibit B was produced in bad faith. PW1 testified that DW1 was not forced to sign the document and was free to bring his lawyer. The fact that Dr. Ohaneche, who initially represented the Defendants, later withdrew the case and opted for settlement further discredits any claims of fraud or coercion.

 

The Plaintiff points out that the Defendants had already filed a Notice of Discontinuance in previous suits (as evidenced by Exhibits D-D3), demonstrating that they had settled the matter, only to revive the issue in the current suit. The Plaintiff argues that Exhibit H (a letter written by the Plaintiff to the Ministry of Lands) shows that at the time of purchase, the Plaintiff believed the land was free from encumbrance. However, later complications revealed that the land title was not genuine, which led to the 2004 revocation by the Imo State Government. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant is attempting to distort the meaning of Exhibit H.

 

The Plaintiff asserts that Exhibit H1 confirms that the government reallocated the land to PW1 after the revocation. The Plaintiff emphasizes that Guno Parure’s defective title, derived from Emma Anyiam, was a result of fraudulent allocations, not a case of compulsory acquisition by the government. The government merely corrected the illegality, and the Defendant’s claim is untenable.

 

The Plaintiff refutes the Defendant’s application for joinder at the end of the proceedings, citing A.D.H. Ltd. v. Minister of the FCT (2013), which states that joinder applications cannot be made after a case has been heard and determined. The Defendant’s application is therefore improper and should be dismissed.

 

The Plaintiff’s counsel concludes that the Defendant’s father, Guno Parure, never had valid title to Plot 17, and the revocation by the Imo State Government was lawful. The Defendants’ claims of coercion and fraud regarding the Out of Court Settlement were not supported by evidence. The Plaintiff, having obtained valid title through proper channels and reallocation, is entitled to the reliefs sought. The Defendant’s final address is without merit, and the court should find in favor of the Plaintiff.

 

On issue of Locus Standi and Jurisdiction in Suit No. HOW/540/2013, the Plaintiff’s counsel begins by defining locus standi as the legal capacity or standing of a person to initiate a lawsuit. The court’s focus at this stage is on determining whether the party has the right to bring a claim, not on the merits of the claims themselves. To substantiate this, counsel refers to legal precedent, emphasizing that the court must first evaluate whether the party has a valid legal interest before addressing the substantive issues of the case.

 

The Plaintiff argues that the Claimants in Suit No. HOW/540/2013 lack the legal capacity (locus standi) to initiate the lawsuit. The basis for this claim is that the Claimants, the children of Guno Parure, have not disclosed any Will left by their father or any Letters of Administration obtained for the estate. Without these documents, they have no legal authority to sue in relation to the land in dispute, Plot 17, Clerks Quarters, Owerri.

 

Since the land is governed by statutory law, as indicated by the existence of a Certificate of Occupancy, the case does not fall under customary inheritance laws. Therefore, the court must presume that the estate is vested in the Chief Judge of Imo State until proper administration of the estate is granted. Counsel references the case of Ewarawon v. First Bank & Anor (2019), which explains that without proper documentation (i.e., a Will or Letters of Administration), any legal action involving a deceased person’s estate is premature and affects the jurisdiction of the court.

 

Counsel further supports the argument with Section 10 of the Administration of Estate Act, which mandates that when a person dies intestate (without a Will), the estate is deemed to be vested in the Chief Judge of the state until the granting of Letters of Administration. Therefore, only the Chief Judge has the authority to commence an action concerning the estate of Guno Parure. Since the Claimants did not provide any legal authority to act on behalf of their father’s estate, their standing to sue is void, and the case should be dismissed.

 

Counsel argues that if a party lacks locus standi, the court has no jurisdiction to hear the case. In such situations, the only appropriate order the court can make is to strike out the claims. Citing Adelekan & Ors v. CBN (2015), the Plaintiff’s counsel explains that locus standi is essential to the validity of a lawsuit. If a claimant lacks the legal capacity to sue, the court cannot entertain the case, and no further issues can be adjudicated. The proper outcome in such instances is to strike out the suit in its entirety.

 

Building on the previous point, counsel refers to the case of U.O.O. Nig. Plc v. Okafor & Ors (2020), which reaffirms the importance of locus standi as a condition precedent for jurisdiction. If a case is not initiated by a party with the requisite legal standing, the court is incompetent to hear the case. In the present case, the Claimants’ failure to show their authority to represent the estate of Guno Parure means that the entire lawsuit is incompetent, and the court must strike it out. Counsel emphasizes that this defect renders the suit fatally flawed from the outset.

 

In light of the foregoing arguments, the Plaintiff’s counsel urges the court to resolve Issue 1 in the Plaintiff’s favor. Specifically, the counsel requests that the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim in Suit No. HOW/540/2013 be struck out as incompetent, due to the Claimants’ lack of locus standi and the court’s lack of jurisdiction. Without proper authority to represent their father’s estate, the Claimants cannot maintain their action, and the court cannot adjudicate the claims presented in the case.

 

The Plaintiff’s counsel contends that the Claimants in HOW/540/2013 lack the necessary legal standing to sue, as they failed to establish their authority over their late father’s estate. Without a Will or Letters of Administration, the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the case, and the proper remedy is to strike out the claims.

 

On whether the Interest of the Defendant Was Properly Revoked, the Plaintiff argues that the Defendant’s counsel’s reliance on Section 28 of the Land Use Act is inappropriate in this case. Section 28 applies to the compulsory acquisition of private land, but in this instance, the land in question, Clerks Quarters, is government land. The central issue is not compulsory acquisition but the revocation of fraudulent allocation papers, specifically the title derived by Mr. Emma Anyiam, which was passed down to the Defendant’s father, Guno Parure, and subsequently involved the Claimant.

 

The Plaintiff contends that the title of Mr. Emma Anyiam who transferred the land to Guno Parure, was discovered to be fraudulent. Both Dr. Iwudibia (the Plaintiff’s father) and Guno Parure realized the fraud and sought refunds. While Guno Parure refunded the Plaintiff, he had not received his refund from Emma Anyiam. The Imo State Government revoked the fraudulent title as part of a broader investigation into improper land allocations at Clerks Quarters.

 

The Plaintiff stresses that this case is not about compulsory acquisition, which requires compensation under Sections 28 and 29 of the Land Use Act. Instead, it concerns the revocation of a fraudulently acquired title. Since the original allocation to Emma Anyiam was void from the start, there was no valid title for the Defendant’s father to claim compensation or object to the revocation. The Revocation Order provided an opportunity for any party affected by the revocation to contest it by submitting claims to the Commissioner for Lands within six weeks. However, the Defendant’s father, Guno Parure, did not object or claim compensation. This silence, the Plaintiff argues, indicates acceptance of the government’s action and an acknowledgment that Parure’s title was void.

 

The Plaintiff argues that the revocation process followed all legal requirements, and Mr. Anyiam’s title along with that of subsequent purchasers like Guno Parure was validly revoked. The government’s public notice (Exhibit E) clearly outlines the revocation of all affected land parcels, including Plot 17, Clerks Quarters. The Witness Statement on Oath of the Plaintiff confirms the government’s compliance with procedural requirements under the Land Use Act.

 

A careful review of the Revocation Order shows that the Imo State Government revoked the Defendant’s father’s right of occupancy over Plot 17. The order revoked several plots in Clerks Quarters, including Plot 17, because the allocation process did not follow proper procedures, such as advertising and obtaining the Governor’s approval.

 

The Plaintiff notes that despite the Defendant’s father initially selling the land to the Claimant’s father, Guno Parure’s title was defective from the outset, and the Imo State Government later revoked the title. Furthermore, the Defendant’s father failed to appeal or contest the revocation order or claim any compensation, as provided under the law.

 

The Defendant’s entire defense is based on a vague denial of the

Revocation Order, but they did not provide any substantial evidence to contradict it. The Plaintiff emphasizes that the Defendants neither denied the revocation in their Statement of Defense nor made any effort to challenge it in Suit HOW/540/2013. Under the legal principle stated in CBN v. Dinneh (2021), facts pleaded and not denied are deemed admitted. By failing to contest the revocation in a meaningful way, the Defendants are essentially admitting to the revocation’s validity.

 

Final Addresses Do Not Constitute Evidence: The Plaintiff argues that the defense’s final address, although well-articulated, cannot serve as evidence. According to Timothy v. The People of Lagos State (2021), counsel’s submissions in a final address cannot introduce new evidence or substitute for facts that should have been presented during the trial. The Defendants did not provide credible oral or documentary evidence to challenge the Revocation Order.

 

The Plaintiff emphasizes that documentary evidence, such as the Revocation Order (Exhibit E), is the best form of evidence, far more reliable than conflicting oral testimony. In this case, the Revocation Order is undisputed and supported by credible documentary evidence, which should carry more weight than the Defendants’ vague denials. The Plaintiff cites Asset Management Nominees Ltd. v. Forte Oil Plc (2023), where the court reiterated that documentary evidence is the most reliable and preferred form of proof.

 

The Plaintiff highlights that the Defendants never applied to set aside the Revocation Order of 2004, even though they had ample opportunity to do so. This failure to act is critical because, in the absence of such an application, the Defendants are estopped from challenging the revocation now. Owolabi v. Seun (2023) illustrates that relief sought by a party is the foundation of any legal action, and without pursuing appropriate relief (like setting aside the revocation), the Defendant’s case collapses.

 

The Plaintiff argues that the Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) issued to the Claimant after the revocation of earlier interests is valid and constitutes sufficient proof of title over Plot 17. The Plaintiff refers to Shogo v. Adebayo (2000), which holds that a C of O raises a presumption of ownership in favor of the holder, which can only be rebutted by showing that another person had a better title before the issuance of the certificate. In this case, the Defendants have failed to challenge or disprove the C of O held by the Plaintiff.

 

The Plaintiff points out that the Defendants failed to join the Commissioner for Lands or the Imo State Government as parties in HOW/540/2013, despite challenging the government’s actions in revoking Plot 17. Citing APC v. Okorodudu & Anor (2019), the Plaintiff argues that failing to join necessary parties deprives the court of the jurisdiction to properly adjudicate the claims. Since the Defendants are contesting a government action, they were required to bring the government into the lawsuit, which they failed to do.

 

The Plaintiff addresses the Defendants’ claim that the Certificate of Occupancy was fraudulently obtained. Allegations of fraud, coercion, or deceit must be specifically pleaded and proven with particularity, but the Defendants have failed to do so. In Adepate v. Babatunde (2002), the court held that fraud must be pleaded with specific details, and failure to do so renders the allegation void. The Defendants’ vague references to fraud are insufficient and should be disregarded.

 

The Plaintiff emphasizes that allegations of fraud in a civil case must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, as required by the Evidence Act. In this case, the Defendants have not only failed to plead fraud properly, but they also failed to provide any evidence to meet the high standard of proof required for fraud. The Plaintiff refers to P.I.P. Ltd. v. Trade Bank (Nig.) Plc (2009), where the court held that fraud must be established beyond reasonable doubt, even in civil cases. The Defendants’ failure to provide such proof means the allegation of fraud should be dismissed.

 

In conclusion, the Plaintiff urges the court to resolve Issue 2 in favor of the Plaintiff. The Revocation Order of 2004 was validly issued by the Imo State Government and revoked any interest the Defendants’ father had in Plot 17. The Certificate of Occupancy issued to the Plaintiff is valid, and the Defendants have failed to present any credible evidence to challenge it. The court should find that the Defendants’ interest in the land was properly revoked, and the Plaintiff’s title to Plot 17 is legitimate and should be upheld.

 

On Issue 3, the Plaintiff’s counsel argues that the Defendants are estopped from contesting the Claimant’s title to Plot 17, Clerks Quarters, Owerri based on their prior conduct and agreements. The Claimant, through his Witness Statement on Oath, provided credible evidence that, after the revocation of the Defendant’s title, the Claimant applied for and was duly reallocated the land by the Imo State Government, receiving a Certificate of Occupancy. The Defendants initially challenged the Claimant’s title by filing Suit HOW/121/2005, but the matter was resolved through a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). In the MoU, both parties agreed that the dispute had been settled, and the Defendants acknowledged that they had no further interest in the land. This agreement was formalized and the case was struck out, making any further claims by the Defendants an abuse of court process.

 

The Plaintiff further asserts that he complied with all the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, including the payment of N800,000 to the Defendants as full and final settlement. The Defendants themselves, in their Statement of Defence, admitted to receiving N800,000, but misleadingly claimed that the Plaintiff was still indebted to them by an additional N1.9 million. However, the Defendants provided no proof to substantiate this claim, whereas the Plaintiff provided documentary evidence, including the MoU and Terms of Settlement, to show that the agreed sum of N800,000 was indeed the final amount settled upon.

 

The Plaintiff emphasizes the clear and unambiguous terms of the Settlement Out of Court Agreement, specifically Paragraph 5, which outlines the payment of N800,000 to the Defendants as full and final compensation for all interests in the land, including title, ownership, and possession. The agreement explicitly states that the payment resolves all claims regarding the land, thereby foreclosing any further disputes.

 

Counsel points out that the Settlement Out of Court Agreement (Exhibit B) explicitly precludes the Defendants from filing any further suits against the Claimant or contesting his title. The agreement states that the Defendants have no subsisting interest in the land and have withdrawn any claims they may have had. Additionally, the Defendants agreed not to interfere with the Claimant’s use of the land, thereby barring them from raising any subsequent disputes over the title. The Defendants’ present actions in Suit HOW/540/2013 are, therefore, a clear violation of the agreement and constitute an abuse of court process.

 

The Plaintiff invokes the doctrine of pacta sunt servanda, which means that parties are bound by their agreements and cannot unilaterally rescind or alter the terms. This doctrine is a fundamental principle of contract law. In the case of Maidara v. Halilu (2000), the court held that parties are bound by the terms of their contract unless there is evidence of fraud, duress, or undue influence. In this case, the Defendants entered into the agreement willingly and must now abide by its terms. Similarly, in Obanye v. UBN Plc (2018), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that once a valid contract is formed, parties are bound by its terms, unless there is proof of fraud or coercion, which the Defendants have failed to establish.

 

The Plaintiff addresses the Defendants’ claim that the Settlement Agreement was signed under duress at a police station. Counsel argues that this claim is not supported by any evidence. The Defendants failed to apply to the court to set aside the agreement on the grounds of duress, which significantly weakens their argument. Furthermore, the allegation of duress was never pleaded in their Statement of Defence, meaning it was not properly raised as an issue in the case. According to Etuwewe v. Etuwewe (1993), evidence not based on pleadings goes to no issue and should be ignored by the court.

 

The Plaintiff argues that the Defendants are estopped by conduct from contesting the Claimant’s title. By entering into the Memorandum of Understanding and agreeing to the terms of the Settlement Out of Court Agreement, the Defendants effectively waived any right to challenge the Claimant’s title in the future. In A.-G., Rivers State v. A.-G., Akwa Ibom State (2011), the court explained that estoppel by conduct prevents a party from acting contrary to their previous representations or agreements, especially when those actions would harm the other party. The Defendants, having settled the matter and accepted payment, cannot now reverse their position and seek to challenge the Claimant’s title.

 

In addition to estoppel by conduct, the Plaintiff invokes estoppel in pais, which prevents a party from “blowing hot and cold” or approbating and reprobating. The Defendants had agreed to a settlement that acknowledged the Claimant’s title to the land, and their attempt to now contest it contradicts their prior position. In Airtel Networks Ltd. v. Plus Ltd. (2020), the court held that estoppel in pais ensures fairness and prevents dishonesty in human transactions, compelling parties to stand by their word. The Defendants’ current actions amount to bad faith and should be rejected by the court.

 

In conclusion, the Plaintiff argues that the Defendants are bound by the Memorandum of Understanding and the Settlement Out of Court Agreement, which preclude them from contesting the Claimant’s title to Plot 17, Clerks Quarters. The Defendants’ current claims are an abuse of court process and should be dismissed under the doctrines of estoppel by conduct and pacta sunt servanda. The Plaintiff urges the court to resolve this issue in the Plaintiff’s favor and uphold the Settlement Agreement, which the Defendants entered into willingly and from which they cannot now withdraw.

 

On Issue 4, Counsel argues that there are five established methods to prove title to land, as recognized by Nigerian law. These methods are:1. Traditional evidence;2. Acts of ownership; 3. Production of documents of title; 4. Long possession; and

5. Possession of connected or adjacent land.

 

Counsel refers to the seminal case of Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) and the subsequent case of Raphael v. Ezi (2015), which affirmed these five methods. In this case, the Claimant relies on documentary evidence as the primary method of proving title to Plot 17.

 

The Claimant produced several key documents to establish his title, including: -Revocation Order (Exhibit E), – Letter of Allocation (Exhibit H1), – Certificate of Occupancy (Exhibit A).

 

These documents were tendered as evidence during the trial. Counsel highlights that the Claimant’s Witness Statement on Oath (paragraphs 5 and 10) outlines the Claimant’s acquisition of the property through due process, following the revocation of any previous title by the Imo State Government. The Certificate of Occupancy and other documents were issued to the Claimant after his application was accepted, proving his entitlement to the land.

 

Counsel emphasizes that allocation papers are critical statutory documents that confer an equitable interest in the land until formal title is granted through the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The legal validity of these papers stems from the Governor’s authority under the Land Use Act. Counsel cites the case of Aderonpe v. Eleran (2019), which underscores that allocation papers, once issued, vest an equitable interest in the land, pending full legal title. In this case, the allocation papers and subsequent Certificate of Occupancy show that the Claimant followed due legal processes and that the land was duly allocated to him after the revocation of previous interests.

 

Counsel argues that the Claimant has discharged the burden of proof through the production of valid documentary evidence. The Defendant, despite alleging that these documents were fraudulently obtained, failed to provide any evidence or initiate proceedings to set them aside. The Defendant’s failure to rebut the Claimant’s documents through cross-examination further strengthens the Claimant’s case.

 

Additionally, Exhibit H, a solicitor’s letter introduced by the Defendant, does not establish that the Defendant had any valid interest in the land or show that the Claimant acknowledged any debt. Similarly, the letters dated 9/10/2003 and 14/2/2005 provide no basis for impugning the Claimant’s title, particularly in light of the 2004 Revocation Order, which reset any prior interests in the land.

 

Counsel concludes that the Claimant has provided sufficient evidence to prove his title to Plot 17. The Revocation Order, Allocation Letter, and Certificate of Occupancy all support the Claimant’s position that he holds the statutory right of occupancy over the land. The Defendants, by contrast, have failed to present any credible challenge to these documents. Counsel urges the court to find in favor of the Claimant, declaring that he has sufficiently discharged the burden of proof regarding his title to Plot 17.

 

On Issue 5 Counsel submits that the Defendant’s Final Address is incompetent because it was filed out of time, in contravention of the Imo State High Court Rules. According to Order 30 Rule 13, parties are given 21 days after the close of their case to file a final address. In this case, the Defendant closed its case on 22nd November 2023 but only filed its Final Address on 21st March 2024, far exceeding the 21-day limit. Counsel cites Okafor v. Elikwu & Ors (2022), where the court ruled that final addresses filed outside the prescribed time frame without an accompanying motion for extension of time are invalid. In the present case, the Defendant did not file any motion to regularize the late submission, rendering the Final Address procedurally flawed.

 

Counsel further emphasizes the importance of adhering to court rules, citing Adamawa State Min., Land & Survey v. Salisu (2021), where the court stressed that rules of court must be obeyed. Failure to comply with court rules may result in the striking out of the offending process or even the entire case.

 

Based on this authority, Counsel argues that the Defendant’s Final Address should be struck out for being incompetent, as it violates the Imo State High Court Rules. The failure to file within the prescribed time frame undermines the fairness and efficiency of the judicial process, warranting sanctions.

 

Counsel concludes by urging the court to strike out the Defendant’s Final Address for being filed out of time and without proper regularization. This procedural failure renders the address incompetent, and the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain it. Counsel asserts that strict adherence to procedural rules is necessary to ensure the just and efficient administration of justice.

 

In summary, Counsel argues that the Claimant has sufficiently proven his title to Plot 17, Clerks Quarters, through valid documentary evidence, while the Defendant’s challenges are unsubstantiated. Additionally, the Defendant’s Final Address is procedurally defective and should be struck out. Accordingly, Counsel urges the court to grant judgment in favor of the Claimant and dismiss the Defendant’s claims.

 

On the other hand, LUN Nwakaeti the Counsel representing the Defendants in Suit No: HOW/434/2013 and the Plaintiffs in Suit No: HOW/540/2013 (following the consolidation of the two suits) in his final written address opens with a summary of the claims made by both parties. The Defendants (now Plaintiffs in the consolidated suits) seek declaratory and monetary reliefs, including a declaration of their right to the statutory occupancy of Plot 17, Clerks Quarters, Owerri, while the Plaintiffs (Defendants in the consolidated suits) assert their ownership through a Certificate of Occupancy and request the court to bar the Defendants from making further claims over the land.

 

In what he called brief facts of the Case, Counsel explains that the central issue revolves around the ownership of Plot 17. Both parties agree that Dr. F.O. Iwudibia, the original plaintiff, purchased the land from the Defendants’ father, Guno Parure, for N2,800,000. However, following difficulties in developing the land, Dr. Iwudibia demanded a refund, which was repaid in two installments of N2,000,000 and N700,000, leaving N100,000 for agency fees. The case became contentious when Dr. Iwudibia purportedly received a fresh allocation of the same land from the Imo State Government in 2005 after the alleged revocation of the Defendants’ title.

 

He summarizes the case of the Plaintiff in HOW/434/2013) thus: The Plaintiff, Dr. F.O. Iwudibia (PW1), testified regarding his purchase of the land and the challenges he encountered in obtaining the necessary approvals to develop it. He produced several documents, including: – Exhibit A: Certificate of Occupancy, – Exhibit C: Settlement out of court, – Exhibit E: Revocation of Right of Occupancy, – Exhibit H and H1: Letters concerning his difficulties with land development and subsequent allocation of the plot in dispute.

 

PW1 admitted that he purchased the land from the Defendants’ father after confirming its genuineness through a search at the Ministry of Lands. However, after demanding and receiving a refund for the land, PW1 purportedly received a fresh allocation of the land from the government in 2005 (Exhibit H1).

 

In his analysis of PW1’s Testimony, Counsel draws attention to key admissions by PW1, particularly his acknowledgment that he conducted a search and confirmed the land was free from encumbrances before purchasing it. Despite this, PW1 requested a refund from the Defendants’ father, which was repaid in two installments, leaving N100,000 for agent fees. This admission casts doubt on the subsequent claim that the land was problematic and warranted a fresh allocation from the government.

 

PW2 (Surveyor Patrick Okafor PW2, a staff member of the Ministry of Lands, testified under subpoena. He confirmed that the Letter of Allocation (Exhibit H1) was issued in response to PW1’s complaint (Exhibit H). Under cross-examination, PW2 admitted that Exhibit H1 was not an application for allocation, further questioning the basis for reallocation of the land to Dr. Iwudibia.

 

The counsel summarized the evidence from DW1 (Uche Parure)

According to him, the Defendants’ sole witness (DW1), Uche Parure, confirmed his knowledge of the transaction between his late father and Dr. Iwudibia. He outlined the history of ownership of the land, which was transferred through several parties until it reached his father. DW1 maintained throughout his testimony that Plot 17 was never revoked by the government and that his father’s title was valid.

 

When confronted with the Settlement Agreement (Exhibit B), DW1 claimed that he was coerced into signing the document under duress while in detention following his mother’s death. This raises questions about the fairness and validity of the settlement. Counsel emphasizes the importance of three key documents in the case:

Exhibit B (Settlement Agreement). Counsel argues that Exhibit B, the purported terms of settlement, was prepared unilaterally by the Plaintiff’s counsel without the Defendants’ involvement or legal representation. The circumstances surrounding its creation, particularly the claim of duress, cast doubt on its validity.

 

Exhibit H (Letter from Dr. Iwudibia): This letter, dated 9th October 2003, was a complaint from Dr. Iwudibia to the Ministry of Lands about difficulties in obtaining development approvals. Counsel points out that Exhibit H confirms PW1’s satisfaction with the land’s title after conducting a search. Thus, there was no defect in the title at the time of purchase, which contradicts PW1’s later claims.

 

Exhibit H1 (Letter of Allocation): Exhibit H1 is the letter of allocation issued in response to Exhibit H. PW2 admitted under cross-examination that this was not an application for allocation, which raises questions about the reallocation process. Counsel submits that the reallocation was a calculated scheme to deprive the Defendants of their rightful title to the land.

 

Counsel argues that Exhibit B (the settlement agreement) was obtained under duress, which vitiates its legal effect. The Defendants were coerced into signing the agreement while under emotional distress, and as such, it should not be considered valid.

 

Counsel contends that the Defendants’ title to Plot 17 was valid and never properly revoked. Despite claims of revocation, there is no evidence of proper notice being given to the Defendants. Moreover, the search conducted by Dr. Iwudibia before purchasing the land confirmed its genuineness, and he only demanded a refund due to personal difficulties in obtaining development permits, not because of any defect in the title.

 

The reallocation of the land to Dr. Iwudibia was based on questionable grounds, as evidenced by the lack of a formal application and the dubious timing of the allocation letter (Exhibit H1), which came nearly two years after PW1 had already purchased and returned the land. This suggests a calculated attempt to unlawfully take the land from the Defendants.

 

As a preliminary issue, Counsel submits that the Commissioner for Lands should be joined as a necessary party, as the outcome of the case affects the Ministry’s actions, including the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy and reallocation of the land.

 

Counsel for the Defendants concludes by asserting that the Defendants’ title to Plot 17 remains valid and was never properly revoked. The Settlement Agreement should be set aside due to coercion, and the purported reallocation of the land to **Dr. Iwudibia was illegal. Counsel urges the court to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claims and enter judgment in favor of the Defendants, affirming their statutory right of occupancy over the disputed land. Additionally, Counsel calls for the joinder of the Commissioner for Lands, whose actions are directly implicated in the case.

 

on Issues 1 and 2: Nexus Between Exhibits H and H1:The argument on Issues 1 and 2 delves into the legality of the purported allocation of Plot 17, Clerks Quarters to the Plaintiff’s late father, Dr. Felix O. Iwudibia. Counsel begins by critically analyzing Exhibits H and H1, which are pivotal in the case. Exhibit H is a letter from the Plaintiff (Dr. Iwudibia) to the Commissioner of Lands dated 9th October 2003, in which he confirmed the genuineness of the land after conducting a search at the Ministry of Lands and proceeded to pay for it. However, Exhibit H1, dated 14th February 2005, purports to be a reply to Exhibit H, granting the Plaintiff a fresh allocation of the same land that he had earlier confirmed to be free from encumbrances.

 

Counsel points out that there is no logical connection between these two documents. The inconsistencies in the content and subject matter of these documents indicate a fraudulent attempt to take the land away from the Defendants’ father, **Guno Parure, using government machinery. The Plaintiff had already confirmed in Exhibit H that there was no issue with the land, and he had paid the purchase price. Yet, Exhibit H1 refers to a reallocation of the land, which raises serious questions about the legitimacy of the entire transaction.

 

Counsel contends that the Plaintiff, after confirming the genuineness of the land and paying the purchase price, demanded a refund of N2,700,000 from the Defendants’ father without any clear justification. The Plaintiff claimed that there was an issue with the land but never disclosed what that issue was in evidence.

 

This raises suspicion of a deliberate scheme involving the Plaintiff and his connections within the Ministry of Lands to wrongfully dispossess the Defendants of Plot 17. The Counsel asserts that the Defendants’ father, Guno Parure, was a victim of this scheme, and there was no reasonable justification for the actions taken by the Plaintiff and the Ministry, leading to the forced takeover of the land.

 

Counsel shifts the focus to the legal provisions governing land revocation, citing Section 28(1) of the Land Use Act, which stipulates that a governor can only revoke a right of occupancy for overriding public interest. Furthermore, Section 28(4) of the Act mandates that a notice of revocation must be issued in the event that land is required by the government for public purposes. Crucially, Section 28(6) emphasizes that the revocation must be personally notified to the holder of the certificate of occupancy.

 

The Counsel argues that the Defendants’ father, Guno Parure, held a statutory right of occupancy over Plot 17, and as such, the Governor or any authorized officer was obligated to personally serve him a notice of revocation. The failure to serve this notice, as required by law, renders the purported revocation null and void. Counsel emphasizes that the mere **publication of the revocation in newspapers does not suffice, and personal service is mandatory under the law.

 

To support this point, Counsel refers to the case of Iwuchukwu & Anor vs AG of Anambra State (2015) LPELR-24487(CA), where the Court of Appeal held that the service of a notice of revocation cannot be presumed merely because the affected party is aware of its existence. The service must be proven by preponderance of evidence, and in this case, there was no evidence that such a notice was served on Guno Parure.

 

The argument continues by asserting that the purpose of serving a revocation notice is to inform the affected party of the reason for the revocation. Counsel cites Obiokoya & Sons Ltd vs Gov. of Lagos State (1997) NWLR (Pt. 50) 387 and Tura vs Gov. of Kano State & Ors (2019) LPELR-51296, reinforcing the importance of timely and personal service of the revocation notice. Failure to follow this process invalidates the revocation.

 

Finally, Counsel submits that since the Defendants’ father’s title was never properly revoked in compliance with the Land Use Act, the entire process leading to the allocation of the land to the Plaintiff is null and void. The purported revocation and subsequent reallocation of the land to the Plaintiff’s father were illegal and lacked any legal foundation. Counsel urges the court to resolve Issues 1 and 2 in favor of the Defendants, holding that the revocation and reallocation of Plot 17 were invalid and without effect.

 

Counsel for the Defendants has argued that the Plaintiff’s father’s acquisition of Plot 17, Clerks Quarters was fraudulent and that the Defendants’ father’s title was never properly revoked. The failure to follow the mandatory provisions of the Land Use Act, specifically the personal service of revocation notice, renders the Plaintiff’s claim to the land null and void. Counsel urges the court to rule in favor of the Defendants on Issues 1 and 2.

 

on Issue 3: Circumstances of Fraud and Injustice in the Allocation of the Land: The argument for Issue 3 revolves around the fraudulent circumstances surrounding the allocation of Plot 17, Clerks Quarters to the Plaintiff, Dr. Felix O. Iwudibia, and how this conduct resulted in the dispossession of the Defendants’ father, Mr. Guno Parure. Counsel asserts that the Plaintiff, through underhanded means and in collusion with officials from the Ministry of Lands, orchestrated a plot to unjustly take the land from Guno Parure.

 

The Plaintiff first manipulated the situation by informing Mr. Parure that his land had issues without revealing the specific problems. This led to the Plaintiff demanding and receiving a refund of the N2,700,000 paid for the land. At the same time, the Plaintiff refused to return the documents of title** (including the Power of Attorney) handed over during the initial transaction. This tactic was a deliberate ploy to prevent Mr. Parure from accessing or reselling his own land, thus **stripping him of any ability to reclaim the property.

 

The counsel highlights the fact that the Plaintiff used thugs and police to block Mr. Parure’s children (the Defendants) from entering the land after his death, further compounding the trauma and injustice. This act, they argue, broke Mr. Parure’s spirit, leading to his death. The Plaintiff’s actions are described as malicious, demonic, and a manifestation of heartlessness, all aimed at forcibly seizing the land from the rightful owner.

 

Counsel further argues that the foundation of the purported revocation of the land was faulty, which renders any title purportedly conveyed to the Plaintiff legally invalid. The legal principle “Ex nihilo nihil fit” (out of nothing, nothing comes), as established in the case of UAC v. Macfoy (1962), is invoked to assert that if the revocation itself was invalid, then all subsequent actions based on that revocation, including the Plaintiff’s claim to the land, are null and void.

 

Next, Counsel shifts attention to the purported terms of settlement (Exhibit B), which they argue was obtained through fraud, coercion, and duress. According to the Defendants’ account, 1st Defendant, Uche Parure, was unjustly detained by the police due to the Plaintiff’s manipulation. The Plaintiff promised to release him from detention if he agreed to a settlement regarding the land. Desperate to be freed from detention and under emotional distress following his mother’s death, Uche Parure was coerced into signing a settlement document at the Plaintiff’s lawyer’s office. This document provided him with N800,000, a fraction of the N2,700,000 that the Plaintiff had previously collected from Guno Parure.

 

Counsel argues that the terms of settlement, executed in the absence of the Defendants’ lawyer, were not only fraudulent but were also a product of duress. This makes the settlement null and void. The Plaintiff, in the Counsel’s view, was merely taking advantage of 1st Defendant’s vulnerable position, and such actions cannot stand in law. The failure to involve the Defendants’ counsel in the settlement, despite the gravity of the situation, further illustrates the injustice and lack of due process.

 

Counsel emphasizes the legal principle that “a person cannot be allowed to benefit from his own wrong”. This principle is strongly established in case law, including Agbere v. Mimra (2008) and BMNL v. Ola Ilemgbok Ltd (2007), where the courts have consistently refused to allow any party to profit from wrongful conduct. In this case, the Plaintiff should not be allowed to benefit from his fraudulent actions, which involved collusion with government officials to forcefully take over Plot 17.

 

Further, in African Petroleum v. Owodumi (1994), the Supreme Court reiterated that allowing a party to benefit from their wrong would be manifestly unjust and would portray the law as an instrument of injustice. Here, the Plaintiff’s attempts to benefit from his dubious dealings in securing the land through fraud and coercion must be disallowed, and the purported settlement should be voided as a nullity.

 

Building on this, Counsel argues that when an act is null and void, it is as though it never existed. As per legal precedents like A.S.C.O.N. v. Akinbami (2008) and Ayisa v. Akanji (1997), an invalid act remains invalid forever, regardless of how it has been treated over time. In this case, the terms of settlement, having been secured through coercion and fraud, must be treated as void ab initio—that is, from the very beginning. Thus, the Defendants’ claim to the land must remain intact, and the Plaintiff’s actions must be recognized as illegitimate.

 

In conclusion, the Plaintiff’s actions in taking over Plot 17 Clerks Quarters were fraudulent, manipulative, and unjust. The terms of settlement were obtained through coercion and duress, making them null and void. The Plaintiff should not be allowed to benefit from his wrongful conduct, and the revocation of the Defendants’ title to the land was illegitimate. Counsel urges the court to invalidate the settlement and dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim, while upholding the Defendants’ rightful ownership of Plot 17.

 

Defendants counsel filed Reply to Plaintiff’s Final Written Address: In this reply, the Defendants address arguments raised by the Plaintiff in their final written address and challenge the Plaintiff’s assertions regarding locus standi and jurisdiction, while reinforcing the legitimacy of their own claims in Suit No: HOW/540/2013.

 

The Defendants argue that they have the requisite locus standi (legal standing) to bring Suit No: HOW/540/2013. In their view, a cause of action had arisen, allowing them to sue. They cite legal precedents such as Egbe v. Adefarasin (No. 2) and Nwora v. Nwabueze (2016) to establish that their claim has a legal basis because it involves operative facts giving them a right to sue. They highlight that cause of action refers to the right to bring a legal claim based on events that occurred in the immediate past.

 

They clarify that Suit No: HOW/540/2013 was originally initiated as an undefended list procedure for a liquidated money demand, later transferred to the general cause list, and thus is properly before the court.

 

The Defendants dismiss portions of the Plaintiff’s final written address as baseless, weightless, and worthless due to the lack of supporting evidence. They further argue that the Plaintiff cannot use the law as an engine of fraud to prevent them from recovering their late father’s money. The Defendants point out that despite the Plaintiff’s claim that they lack locus standi to pursue recovery of the debt, the Plaintiff himself coerced them into signing the Memorandum of Understanding (Exhibit B).

 

Through the testimony of DW1 (Defendant’s witness), the Defendants highlight the coercion, detailing how DW1 was detained at the police station and only released after signing the document under duress. The Defendants assert that the Plaintiff used police powers to harass and manipulate them, as admitted by the Plaintiff in paragraph 9.34 of the Plaintiff’s final written address. This admission confirms that the Plaintiff used the police to put the Defendants on a “wanted list” and to prevent them from accessing their land.

 

The Defendants invoke the legal maxim “Non facias malum ut inde veniat bonum” (no one should commit wrong in order to achieve good), arguing that the Plaintiff’s self-serving and manipulative conduct violates this principle. They stress that the Plaintiff cannot approbate and reprobate, i.e., benefit from his wrongful acts while attempting to deny the Defendants their rights. Citing cases like Thomas Wyatt & Son v. Plumstead Investment Ltd (2019) and Eyiboh v. Musa Ddadi (2013), they argue that a party cannot blow hot and cold in legal proceedings.

 

The Defendants further contend that Suit No: HOW/540/2013 relates to the estate of their late father, and as his biological children and successors, they have legal authority to pursue recovery of the debt. The locus standi doctrine, in their view, applies to parties whose legal rights have been directly interfered with, as seen in Incorporated Trustees, CAN v. Kwara State Government (2016).

 

The Defendants argue that they have locus standi to recover the debt owed by the Plaintiff because it is tied to their late father’s estate, of which they are the rightful heirs. They challenge the Plaintiff’s reliance on the Administration of Estate Law as a shield to avoid liability, asserting that this law cannot be used to perpetrate fraud.

 

Further, they argue that Suit No: HOW/434/2013, filed by the Plaintiff, acknowledges the Defendants’ authority to challenge the Plaintiff’s wrongful conduct regarding their father’s estate. The Plaintiff’s actions of holding onto the estate after collecting a refund for the land’s purchase price constitutes an affront to equity. They urge the court not to allow the Plaintiff to use the Administration of Estate Law to shield himself from the consequences of his wrongful actions.

 

The Defendants respond to the Plaintiff’s argument regarding non-joinder of the Commissioner for Lands/Imo State Government, contending that their presence is not mandatory for the court to adjudicate the matter. They cite P.D.P. v. Edede (2022) and other cases, arguing that the absence of a necessary party does not nullify the judgment as long as the matter can still be effectively resolved.

 

They further argue that non-joinder does not affect the merit of the case or the court’s jurisdiction. In A.P.C v. Sulaiman (2021), the court held that non-joinder does not render a case incompetent, as long as the judgment can be effectively rendered without the party. Thus, they assert that the Commissioner for Lands need not be joined in the matter, and the Plaintiff’s argument on this point is baseless.

 

In concluding their reply, the Defendants reiterate their previous arguments and emphasize that the Plaintiff failed to prove his case in Suit No: HOW/434/2013. They argue that the Plaintiff cannot rely on the weakness of the Defendants’ defense to succeed. Instead, the burden of proof lies on the Plaintiff, which they argue he has failed to discharge.

 

The Defendants also reassert their right to recover the N2,700,000 paid to the Plaintiff by their late father. The Plaintiff’s admission of receiving this amount, coupled with the fraudulent and manipulative tactics used by the Plaintiff, including the use of police force, renders the Plaintiff’s position untenable. They urge the court to dismiss the Plaintiff’s suit and grant their claims in Suit No: HOW/540/2013.

 

The Defendants highlight that the Plaintiff cannot hide behind the Administration of Estate Law to defeat the claims of the rightful heirs to the estate. They argue that equity demands that the Plaintiff not be allowed to benefit from his wrongful conduct, and they ask the court to uphold the principles of justice and fairness in this case.

 

The Defendants conclude by urging the court to dismiss Suit No: HOW/434/2013 brought by the Plaintiff and to uphold the reliefs sought in Suit No: HOW/540/2013. They argue that the Plaintiff’s conduct, based on fraud, coercion, and deceit, should not be rewarded. Instead, the court should restore justice by ruling in favor of the Defendants, who are entitled to the reliefs sought as the rightful heirs of Guno Parure’s estate.

 

RESOLUTION OF THE MATTER:

Based on the facts, arguments, and cases presented by both parties in Suit No: HOW/434/2013 and Suit No: HOW/540/2013, as consolidated, the following issues for determination can be distilled to resolve the dispute:

 

1. Whether the Non-Joinder of the Ministry of Lands/Imo State Government viates the proceeding.
2. Whether the Defendants in Suit No: HOW/434/2013 (Plaintiffs in HOW/540/2013) Have Locus Standi to Bring the Suit
3. Whether the Revocation of the Defendants’ Father’s Interest in Plot 17 by the Imo State Government Was Valid
4. Whether the Plaintiff’s Title to Plot 17, Clerks Quarters, Owerri, Was Lawfully Acquired After the Revocation of the Defendants’ Father’s Title
5. Whether the Defendants Are Estopped from Challenging the Plaintiff’s Title Under the Doctrine of Pacta Sunt Servanda
6. Whether the Plaintiff Is Indebted to the Defendants for the Balance of N2,700,000 Paid for Plot 17
7. Whether the Plaintiff’s Use of Police and Other Means to Forcefully Acquire Plot 17 Constitutes Fraud

 

1. Issue of Non-Joinder of the Ministry of Lands/Imo State Government:

In resolving the dispute between the parties in Suit No: HOW/434/2013 and Suit No: HOW/540/2013, the issue of non-joinder of the Ministry of Lands/Imo State Government must be considered. This is particularly relevant because the alleged revocation of the Defendants father’s title to Plot 17 and the subsequent alleged allocation to the Plaintiff were carried out by the Imo State Government.

 

The question that arises is whether the failure to join the Ministry of Lands/Imo State Government has any legal implication on the case and, if so, which party bears the responsibility of applying for their joinder.

 

The Plaintiff in Suit No HOW/343/2013 and so plaintiff in the consolidated suit is of the view that non joinder of the Ministry of Lands/Government of Imo State by the Plaintffs in Suit No HOW/540/2013 and defendants in the consolidated suits, renders the Suit No HOW/540/2013 incompetent.

 

A necessary party is one whose presence before the court is essential for the court to effectively and completely adjudicate on the issues in dispute. According to the Supreme Court in GREEN V. GREEN (1987) NWLR (PT. 61) 481, a necessary party is one whose interest will be directly affected by the outcome of the case, and in whose absence, the court cannot effectively determine the issue before it.

 

In this case, the government issued the revocation notice that allegedly invalidated the Defendants’ father’s title to the land. The validity of this revocation is central to the dispute. The Plaintiff’s title, derived from the government through a Certificate of Occupancy, is being contested, and the government’s role in issuing this certificate must be scrutinized In this case, while the dispute centers around the ownership of Plot 17, the actions of the Ministry of Lands/Imo State Government (specifically, the revocation and reallocation of the land) are integral to the resolution. Since the validity of these governmental actions is in question, the court may need to hear from the government to determine:

– Whether the revocation was lawful and properly carried out under the Land Use Act.

– Whether the subsequent reallocation and issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy to the Plaintiff was valid.

 

It is the responsibility of either party who realizes that a necessary party has not been joined to apply to the court for their joinder. The courts are generally empowered under their inherent jurisdiction and procedural rules to join necessary parties at any stage of the proceedings, even suo motu (on their own motion). The relevant rule is Order 13, Rule 4 of the Imo State High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2017, which provides that the court may join any necessary party to the suit at any stage of the proceedings to ensure that all matters in controversy are fully and effectively resolved.

 

The responsibility to apply for joinder lies with the party who:

– Has an interest in challenging the revocation of the land (in this case, the Defendants/Claimants in Suit No: HOW/540/2013), or

– Wants to protect the validity of the title obtained through the government (in this case, the Plaintiff in Suit No: HOW/434/2013). The Defendants, challenging the validity of the revocation, should have applied to join the Ministry of Lands/Imo State Government to provide evidence on whether proper procedures were followed in revoking their father’s title. Likewise, the Plaintiff, relying on a Certificate of Occupancy issued by the government, could have sought to join the government to validate the issuance of the Certificate.

 

The courts have held that a failure to join a necessary party may not always be fatal to a case, especially where the court can still determine the matter based on the evidence presented by the parties. The Court of Appeal held that where a necessary party was not joined, it would not automatically render the judgment a nullity. See UNITY BANK PLC V. AKPEJI (2018) LCN/11862 (CA, PDP V. EDEDE (2022) ALL FWLR (PT. 930) 930

 

The court finds that while the Ministry of Lands/Imo State Government should have been joined as a necessary party, the failure to do so does not invalidate the proceedings. This is Moreso when a staff from the ministry of land, Imo State testified as  PW2. The witness confirmed the actions of the Government supporting the case of the Plaintiff. PW2, Surveyor Patrick Okafor, introduces himself as a staff member of the Ministry of Lands. PW2 identifies the following documents as originating from his office: Exhibit E: The Revocation of Right of Occupancy Order, 2004. Exhibit A: The Certificate of Occupancy issued to Dr. Iwudibia. Exhibit H1: A letter from the Ministry of Lands. These are the basis of the Plaintiff’s title. In other words, the State took a stand and was heard in this consolidated suit. Their involvement as a witness demonstrates their awareness of the suit and participation in the suit. I hold the view that a necessary party’s interests have been represented if they had an opportunity to participate, even if not formally joined. Consequently, a necessary party, having taken part in the proceedings as a witness, may be precluded from later challenging the judgment or seeking to litigate the same issues in future proceedings. The necessary parties are represented.

 

2. 2. Whether the Defendants in Suit No: HOW/434/2013 (Plaintiffs in HOW/540/2013) Have Locus Standi to Bring the Suit.

This concerns whether the Defendants (in Suit No: HOW/434/2013) and Plaintiffs (in Suit No: HOW/540/2013) have the legal standing or competence to sue for the recovery of the N2.7 million ( or the amount currently claimed) owed their late father, Guno Parure, and whether they can challenge the Plaintiff’s title to Plot 17, Clerks Quarters, Owerri.

 

The Plaintiff in HOW/434/2013 argues that the Defendants lack locus standi because no Letters of Administration were tendered to prove their legal standing. The Defendants counter by asserting that, as successors of their late father’s estate, they are the proper parties to sue and seek recovery of their father’s money. The Defendants rely on cases such as Incorporated Trustees, C.A.N v. Kwara State Government (2016) to argue that they have a justifiable interest in the estate of their father, giving them locus standi to bring the suit.

 

If the submission of the plaintiff is followed strictly, its application to Suit No HOW/434/2013 and Suit No HOW/540/2013 will yield the same result.

-Suit No HOW/434/2013 (Filed by Dr. Felix O. Iwudibia (now late)). In this case, Dr. Iwudibia sued Uche Parure and Chidi Parure (the sons of the late Guno Parure) over Plot 17, Clerks Quarters, Owerri. If Uche and Chidi Parure had not obtained Letters of Administration, they legally would not have the locus standi to represent their late father’s estate or defend the property in court.

 

Dr. Iwudibia could not have validly sued the individual sons of Guno Parure in their personal capacity if they had no legal authority over their father’s estate. The correct procedure would have been for Dr. Iwudibia to ensure that the Letter of Administration was granted to the sons of Guno Parure, or to sue the estate of Guno Parure, which would then be represented by a legally appointed administrator.

 

– Suit No HOW/540/2013 (Filed by Uche and Chidi Parure): Similarly, Uche and Chidi Parure (the Plaintiffs in Suit No HOW/540/2013) could not have validly sued Dr. Iwudibia without first obtaining a Letter of Administration to administer their late father’s estate. If they sought to recover the land or assert title on behalf of their father’s estate, they would have to first be appointed as legal administrators by obtaining Letters of Administration.

 

There is no place for technicality in the administration of justice. In OLUWAROTIMI ODUNAYO AKEREDOLU V. DR. OLUSEGUN MICHAEL ABRAHAM (2018) 10 NWLR (PT. 1628) 510 AT 541 PARAS. A-E), it is stated that technicality in the administration of justice shuts out justice. A man denied justice on any ground, much less a technical ground, grudges the administration of justice. It is therefore better to have a case heard and determined on merit than to leave the court with a shield of victory obtained on mere technicalities. The Supreme Court and indeed all courts have made a clean sweep of the picture of the law and its technical rules triumphant. By its current mood, the Supreme Court has firmly and irreversibly spurned the old practice where the temple of justice was converted into a forensic abattoir where legal practitioners, employing such tools of their trade like the whirling of technicalities, daily butchered substantive issues in court in their fencing game in which parties engage themselves in an exercise of outsmarting each other.

 

It will not be justice to send the parties back to the trenches 11 years after the commencement of this present action. It is on record that numerous unconcluded actions have been filed in respect of this matter even before the 2013. Furthermore, all the settlements or agreements allegedly signed by the Defendants with the Plaintiff and which the Plaintiff sought to rely upon will also go to no issue.

 

In RUTHLINZ INTERL INVEST. LTD. V. IHEBUZOR (2016) 11 NWLR (PT. 1524) 409 it is stated:

The wife or children of a deceased person can sue as the next of kin of a deceased person to protect that person’s property before the grant of lettersof administration over the property.

The supreme court reiterated in CHIEF OROK I. IRONBAR V. FEDERAL MORTGAGE FINANCE LTD. (2024) 12 NWLR (PT. 1952) 275 thus:

Prior to the grant of Letters of Administration; the children of the deceased should protect his property to avoid waste. In the instant case, the Court of Appeal rightly found that even before the grant of Letters of Administration, the appellant had aright to protect the property of his deceased father so as to avoid waste. From the principal reliefs on the writ of summons, all that the appellant sought to do at the trial court was to protect the property of his deceased father. [Otukpo v. John (2000) 8 NWLR(Pt. 669) 507 referred to.] (P. 315, paras. B-C)

 

The court went further to state:

“Every member of a family has the locus to sue to protect the family’s interest in a family property. However, if he does not have the authority of the family to bring the action, the family will not be bound by the result, unless for some reason, the family is estopped from denying that the decision was binding. Thus, a member of a family requires the consent/authority of the family or where he does not have, he needs the ratification by the family for the result of an action instituted as representing the family to be binding on that family. On the other hand, the head of family can take out an action to protect family property or defend an action in respect of family property without the prior authority of other members of the family and the result shall be binding on the family. In the instant case, the appellant was qualified to sue as the next of kin or the representative of the deceased who was his father in order to secure the estate of his family for the benefit of the family. The reliefs sought concerning the subject-matter of the suit, the property of the deceased, were in favour of the deceased’s family. [Sapo v. Sunmonu (2010) 11NWLR (Pt. 1205) 374 referred to.] (Pp. 331-332,paras. H-D)”

 

It is not contested that the defendants are the children of late Parure. I hold that the Defendants have the locus to institute the action as well as defendant the action of the Plaintiff in this consolidated action.

 

3. 3. Whether the Revocation of the Defendants’ Father’s Interest in Plot 17 by the Imo State Government Was Valid

This relates to whether the Imo State Government’s revocation of the title to Plot 17, Clerks Quarters, Owerri, originally held by Guno Parure (the Defendants’ father), was valid and conducted in accordance with the Land Use Act. The Plaintiff claims that the title held by the Defendants’ father was invalid and was rightfully revoked by the government. The Defendants argue that no proper notice of revocation was served on their father, rendering the revocation illegal and null. They further allege that the Plaintiff fraudulently used government machinery to manipulate the process. The Defendants cite Section 28(1) and (6) of the Land Use Act, which mandates proper notice of revocation.

 

Section 28 of the Land Use Act deals with the revocation of rights of occupancy. It gives the Governor the power to revoke a right of occupancy for an overriding public interest. The section outlines several conditions, including the mandatory service of a notice of revocation on the holder of the right of occupancy.

 

Section 28(1): The Governor can revoke a right of occupancy for an overriding public interest. Section 28(4): A right of occupancy can be revoked if the land is required for public purposes. Section 28(6): Notice of the revocation must be given to the holder of the right of occupancy.

 

Section 44 of the Land Use Act also emphasizes the mandatory service of notice. This section requires that notice of revocation be served personally on the holder of the right of occupancy or, where this is not possible, by substitution. The law clearly set out these substituted means. It leaves no room for invention as can be seem in High Court Rules on substituted service. Specifically, Section 44 states: Where a notice or other document is required or authorized to be served on the holder of a right of occupancy under the Land Use Act, such notice or document shall be effectively served if delivered to the person on whom it is to be served or left at his usual or last-known place of residence or business.

 

The Facts Presented by Both Sides. In (Suit No HOW/434/2013):

The Plaintiff, Dr. Felix O. Iwudibia, claimed that the title of Mr. Guno Parure (the father of the Defendants) over Plot 17, Clerks Quarters was revoked by the Imo State Government due to fraudulent allocations, and subsequently, he was granted the land through re-allocation. He supported his claim with evidence, including the Revocation Order by the Governor of Imo State in 2004, which revoked several plots in Clerks Quarters, including Plot 17.

 

Defendants’ Position (Plaintiffs in Suit No HOW/540/2013): The Defendants, Uche and Chidi Parure, argued that their father’s Certificate of Occupancy was never properly revoked and that no valid notice of revocation was served on their father, as required by the Land Use Act. They contended that the revocation was orchestrated in bad faith by Dr. Iwudibia and his allies in the Ministry of Lands. They also argued that the supposed Revocation Order was not personally served on their father and that the first time they learned of the revocation was much later.

 

The questions that call for answer here relate to compliance with Sections 28 and 44 of the Land Use Act and are:

1. Was the Revocation for Overriding Public Interest? Section 28(1) and (4) of the Land Use Act provide that revocation can be validly done for an “overriding public interest.” From the facts presented, the Revocation Order issued by the Imo State Government referred to the revocation of land within Clerks Quarters for public purposes, citing irregularities in the allocation of land without following due process.

 

The Plaintiff claimed that the revocation was part of a larger investigation by the state government into fraudulent land allocations. However, the Defendants contended that there was no legitimate public interest involved and that the revocation was part of a fraudulent scheme to dispossess their father of the land.

 

For the revocation to be valid under Section 28, there must be evidence that the land was needed for a public purpose. If the revocation was based on fraudulent actions by private individuals within the Ministry of Lands, this may not necessarily qualify as an overriding public interest under the law. In YAKUBU V JAUROYEL [2014] 11 NWLR 205 AT 223: it is stated: A Certificate of Occupancy issued as a result of mistake or inadvertence on the part of the issuing official or concerned authority cannot, be said to be fake, false or fraudulent. (P. 223, para. E). For the Government to have contemplated revocation is an admission that there was allocation. In my humble view, what was wrongly done cannot be wrongly corrected or undone. Two wrongs do not make a right.

 

Now, the revocation order is lumped with various plots allotted to various individuals and entities.

 

In the Revocation Order of 2004, the Governor cited administrative irregularities—such as failure to advertise the land and failure to obtain the Governor’s specific approval—as the reasons for the revocation. These irregularities are procedural errors in the allocation process and can be seen as administrative mistakes by the issuing authority. It is an internal matter. A third party like Parure is not bound by the internal administrative issues of the government, such as failures to follow certain procedural steps in issuing a Certificate of Occupancy. Unless the government lawfully revokes the certificate and follows the due process outlined in the Land Use Act, Parure’s rights to the land remain valid.

 

2. Was the Proper Notice of Revocation Served? Section 28(6) and Section 44 of the Land Use Act both emphasize that a revocation notice must be served personally on the holder of the right of occupancy or, where this is not possible, at their last-known place of residence or business. The Defendants argued that no notice of revocation was ever served on their father, Mr. Guno Parure, or his legal representatives, as required by law. They also pointed out that no evidence of such notice being served was provided by the Plaintiff or the state government.

 

Notice of Revocation is a mandatory legal requirement, and the failure to serve the revocation notice on the holder of the right of occupancy would render the revocation invalid, as held in IWUCHUKWU & ANOR V. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF ANAMBRA STATE (2015) LPELR-24487(CA). In this case, the Court of Appeal held that the service of the notice of revocation on the owner of the land is a fundamental requirement, and knowledge of the revocation through other means (e.g., newspaper publications) does not substitute for proper service. The Plaintiff did not convincingly prove that the Revocation Notice was personally served on Mr. Guno Parure as required by the Land Use Act.

 

3. Was the Revocation Process Fair and Transparent?

The Defendants alleged that the revocation was part of a fraudulent scheme orchestrated by the Plaintiff in collaboration with officials from the Ministry of Lands. They claimed that there was a lack of transparency and fairness in the revocation process. In TURA V. GOVERNOR OF KANO STATE & ORS (2019) LPELR-51296, the Court emphasized that the purpose of serving a revocation notice is to duly inform the holder of the right of occupancy of the reason for the revocation and provide an opportunity to contest or appeal the revocation.

 

In this case, Mr. Guno Parure and his legal heirs were not given the opportunity to contest the revocation due to the alleged failure to serve the notice. This procedural failure is significant because it deprived the Defendants of their legal right to be heard before their father’s property was taken from them.

 

In NAPOLEON S. ORIANZI V. ATTORNEY-GENERAL, RIVERS STATE & ORS (2017) 6 NWLR (PT. 1561) 224, the court held that while the Governor has the authority under Section 28 of the Land Use Act to revoke a right of occupancy for overriding public interest, this power must be exercised in strict compliance with the Act. The revocation must follow the procedures outlined in Sections 28 and 44, including providing proper notice to the holder of the right of occupancy. Revocation of a right of occupancy must be for public purpose or overriding public interest, and cannot be used arbitrarily to reassign land to another person. The holder of the right must be notified in advance, and failure to do so invalidates the revocation. Even if a revocation is valid, the affected party is entitled to compensation under Section 29(1) of the Act.

 

The burden of proof lies on the party asserting the revocation to show that statutory notices were issued as required under the Act. The court emphasized that strict compliance with the law is necessary to prevent abuse of revocation powers. The decision also reinforces that notice must be properly served through one of the methods outlined in Section 44, such as personal delivery, sending it to the last known address, or posting it conspicuously on the property.

 

Based on the facts and legal arguments presented, the revocation of Mr. Guno Parure’s Certificate of Occupancy did not fully comply with Sections 28 and 44 of the Land Use Act.  In this case, the court found no evidence that the appellant was given the required notice or paid compensation for the revoked land, making the revocation unlawful.

 

Let me also add that one of the reasons for revoking the Defendants’ C of O was:

“more particularly to discourage allocation of State land without Following lay-down procedure as the plots affected were neither advertised nor were they specifically approved by His Excellency before allocation.

The Plaintiff did not tender any document where the Plot in question was later published and application from interested parties applied before it was allocated to the Plaintiff.

 

On the other hands the Defendants tendered a publication made on the 8^th day of November 2004 in Daily Champion titled Government of Imo State Of Nigeria Advertisement for vacant plots available for allocation in Imo State”. This plot is not therein contained.

 

4. 4. Whether the Plaintiff’s Title to Plot 17, Clerks Quarters, Owerri, Was Lawfully Acquired After the Revocation of the Defendants’ Father’s Title.

This addresses the lawfulness of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of Plot 17 after the revocation of the Defendants’ father’s interest in the property, and whether the Plaintiff validly obtained the Certificate of Occupancy for the property.

 

The Plaintiff contends that he lawfully applied for and was allocated Plot 17 after the revocation, evidenced by the Certificate of Occupancy and supporting documents such as the Revocation Order of 2004 and a letter of allocation. The Defendants argue that the entire allocation process was fraudulent and that the Plaintiff had no valid title to the land.

 

The Plaintiff relies on the Certificate of Occupancy as proof of ownership, supported by cases like Shogo v. Adebayo (2000). The Defendants, on the other hand, argue based on UAC v. Macfoy (1962) that the Plaintiff cannot obtain title to the land if the foundation of the revocation is fraudulent.

 

Under Section 2 of the Land Use Act, there is an implicit expectation that an individual seeking land under a statutory or customary right of occupancy must make an application. The Act in my view contemplates that individuals desiring land should initiate the process through formal requests to the Governor (or Local Government in rural areas), often accompanied by conditions like fees, surveys, or other documentation.

 

While the Governor has broad discretionary powers in land allocation, the Act generally prescribes that allocation follows a formal application process by the individual. Therefore, allocation without an application by the individual is procedurally irregular under the provisions of the Land Use Act.

 

Section 2(1): All land in urban areas is under the control and management of the Governor of each state. The Governor holds such land in trust for the people of the state and is responsible for granting statutory rights of occupancy to individuals or organizations seeking to use land in these areas.

 

Section 2(2): Land in non-urban (rural) areas is under the control and management of the Local Government within which the land is located. The Local Government may grant customary rights of occupancy to any person or organization for agricultural, residential, or other purposes, as prescribed by law.

 

Allocations are typically made in response to applications, as this ensures proper documentation and helps prevent disputes. Allocations without applications could raise questions about transparency and fairness in the land allocation process.

 

In this case, the allocation paper is dated 14^th February 2005 and was said to be in reply or response to the Petition of the Plaintiff dated 9-10-2003. Recall that the Plaintiff had in the MoU of 4^th August 2004 acknowledged that the plot has been allotted to him. Then in the paragraph 1 it stated:

“I am directed to refer to your letter of 9^th October, 2003 on the above subject and inform you that His Excellency the Executive Governor of Imo State, Chief Achike Udenwa has graciously approved allocation of plot 17 Clerk Quarters Pocket Layout and Environs to you for Residential/Commercial purposes that is to say for residence and establishment of X-Ray business”

It is interesting that this allocation was specific to the least detail – establishment of X-Ray business.

 

The plaintiff has not shown that he applied for allocation. The Plaintiff has not shown that he lawfully and legally acquired the plot in issue. Without properly revoking the existing certificate of occupancy the Governor had nothing to allocate to the Plaintiff at the time it allegedly did.

 

5. 5. Whether the Defendants Are Estopped from Challenging the Plaintiff’s Title Under the Doctrine of Pacta Sunt Servanda

This issue deals with whether the Defendants are estopped from challenging the Plaintiff’s title to the land due to the Memorandum of Understanding and Terms of Settlement (Exhibit B), which the Plaintiff argues bars further claims by the Defendants.

 

The Plaintiff argues that the Defendants agreed, in the Memorandum of Understanding, not to interfere with the property after accepting N800,000 in compensation. The Defendants contend that they were coerced into signing the settlement under duress and that it was obtained fraudulently, making the agreement void. The Plaintiff relies on the principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept) and cases such as Maidara v. Halilu (2000). The Defendants counter with arguments of fraud, duress, and coercion, citing Agbere v. Mimra (2008) and Adimorah v. Ajufo (1988) to establish that the settlement was void.

 

The Plaintiff in Suit No HOW/434/2013 has relied on the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and the Out of Court Settlement allegedly entered into by the Defendants concerning Plot 17, Clerks Quarters, requires an examination of the circumstances surrounding the agreement and whether it defeats the Defendants’ claim to the property.

 

What are the facts surrounding the MoU and Out of Court Settlement? The Defendants, particularly DW1 (Uche Parure), claimed that they were coerced into signing the MoU and Out of Court Settlement. DW1 stated that he was detained by the police, and during this period, Dr. Felix O. Iwudibia, the Plaintiff, promised to secure his release in exchange for signing the settlement agreement.  According to DW1’s testimony, after his release, he was taken to Dr. Iwudibia’s lawyer’s office without his own lawyer present and was pressured into signing the document, which purported to settle the issues related to Plot 17. DW1 alleged that he signed the agreement under duress, influenced by his desire to be released from police detention and to attend to the burial of his late mother. “Pacta sunt servanda” is a Latin phrase that means “agreements must be kept” or “promises must be kept.” It is a fundamental principle of contract law that emphasizes the importance of honoring the terms of a legally binding agreement.

 

The terms of the MoU and Out of Court Settlement purportedly indicated that the Defendants accepted a sum of N800,000 as final settlement for the refund of the N2.7 million their father, Guno Parure, paid for Plot 17. The agreement also allegedly waived any further claims by the Defendants to the property and acknowledged that Dr. Iwudibia (Plaintiff in Suit No HOW/434/2013) had full ownership of Plot 17, Clerks Quarters.

 

It was established that the Defendants did not have their own legal representation during the signing of the MoU and Out of Court Settlement. It is assumed that the Plaintiff’s lawyer drafted the document, which raises concerns about the fairness and equity of the agreement. This concern was dismissed with a wave of hand by the DW1 under cross examination. The fact that the Defendants were not represented by their lawyer, who had been handling Suit No HOW/121/2005 (the suit being settled), to my mind, further casts doubt on the voluntary nature of the agreement. The absence of the Defendants’ lawyer during the signing of the MoU and Out of Court Settlement is significant. It suggests an inequality of bargaining power and raises doubts about whether the Defendants truly understood the implications of the agreement.

 

Now, despite the MoU and Out of Court Settlement, the Defendants went on to file Suit No HOW/540/2013, claiming title to Plot 17 and seeking to recover the N2.7 million allegedly owed to them by the Plaintiff. This suggests that they did not consider the MoU or settlement to be a final resolution of the matter.

 

The Defendants’ claim that they were coerced into signing the  MoU and Out of Court Settlement is supported by the circumstances under which the agreement was signed: while in police detention, without legal representation, and under pressure to resolve the matter quickly. Given these facts, there is a strong argument that the agreement was not entered into freely and voluntarily. I find that coercion or duress was involved, the agreement is voidable at the Defendants’ instance. It is hereby voided. It would not defeat their claim to Plot 17.

 

Now, let’s look at the suit that give rise to the MoU and settlement out of court. The SUIT NO HOW/121/2005 filed 16-3-2005. The Plaintiffs (Defendants in this consolidated suit) filed Notice of Discontinuance on the 16^th day of May 2005. On 17^th day of May 2005, the claim of the Plaintiffs was struck out while the counter claim of the Defendant was adjourned to 27^th day of June 2005

 

On the 13^th day of October 2005, the counsel for the defendant informed the court that the parties have settled out of court and requested for date to enable the plaintiff come to court.  The matter was adjourned to 20^th day of October 2005 for report of settlement. On 2oth day of October 2005, the Court stated:

“On 23/9/2005, there was filed in Court a document titled settlement out of Court in this suit purportedly signed by the two Plaintiffs and the Defendant. The document is not authenticated by either Counsel for the parties. since the document was filed on 23/9/2005, the Plaintiffs and Counsel have not been coming to Court. In the light of the above, this case is hereby struck out.”

 

It is obvious from the proceedings that both the claim and counter claim in Suit No: HOW/121/2005 was struck out. The Settlement out of Court was not adopted in court as the case was struck out on the 20^th day of October 2005

 

The HOW/511/2008 was another suit filed by the Defendants but was struck out on the 2^nd February 2009

 

Now, before the MoU of 23-9-2005, there was a document titled Memorandum of Understanding and Agreement.  The revocation Order was on the 5^th day of November 2004 whereas the MoU was made on the 4^th of August 2004

Paragraphs 2 of the MoU stated:

“Whereas the Parties agree that the late Guno Parure introduced the Giver to this property which has been now allocated to him, the Giver”.

 

It does appear from this paragraph that the property/Plot 17 Clerk Quarter was already allocated to the Giver- Dr Iwudibia even before the purported revocation of 5^th day of November 2004. Certificate of Occupancy was issued on 30^th day of January 2006.

 

Duress, Undue Influence, or Misrepresentation, Mistake, Illegality, Unconscionability are notable exceptions where courts allow parties to be excused from their contractual obligations. See F.B.N. PLC, V. AKINYOSOYE (2005) 5 NWLR (PT. 918) 340, BUA V. DAUDA (2003) 13 NWLR (PT. 838) 657, ABATAN V. AWUDU (2004) 17 NWLR (PT. 902) 430. The Defendants are not estopped from challenging the Plaintiff’s title under the doctrine of Pacta Sunt Servanda.

 

6. Whether the Plaintiff Is Indebted to the Defendants for the Balance of N2,700,000 Paid for Plot 17

This centers on whether the Plaintiff remains indebted to the Defendants for the N2,700,000 paid by their late father, Guno Parure, as part of the transaction for Plot 17, and whether the N800,000 paid to the Defendants constitutes full and final settlement. The Plaintiff claims that the N800,000 paid to the Defendants was final settlement for any claims on the land, as agreed in the Memorandum of Understanding. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff still owes the balance of N1.9 million, as the N800,000 was only partial payment, made under duress.The Defendants cite cases like Woodgrant Ltd. v. Skye Bank (2011) to argue that the Plaintiff remains indebted for the unpaid balance, as this debt is part of their late father’s estate.

 

The court finds that the Plaintiff remains indebted to the Defendants for the balance of N1.9 million. The evidence shows that while N800,000 was paid to the Defendants as part of the settlement, it did not constitute full and final settlement of the N2.7 million paid by the Defendants’ father. In WOODGRANT LTD. V. SKYE BANK PLC (2011) 12 NWLR P.61, the court held that once a party admits to owing money, the other party is entitled to recover the balance unless evidence is presented to show that full payment has been made. The Plaintiff’s failure to prove full payment supports the Defendants’ claim for the remaining N1.9 million.

 

The court holds that the Plaintiff is still indebted to the Defendants for the balance of N1.9 million, which forms part of their late father’s estate as part of the purchase price and as well the interest therein.

 

Issue 7: Whether the Plaintiff’s Use of Police and Other Means to Forcefully Acquire Plot 17 Constitutes intimidation, harassment and Fraud

 

The court finds that the Plaintiff’s use of police force and other coercive tactics to compel the Defendants to relinquish their rights to Plot 17 amounts to fraud. The evidence presented by the Defendants shows that the Plaintiff manipulated the situation by using the police to harass and arrest the first Defendant, forcing him to sign the Terms of Settlement in the absence of his lawyer.

 

The fact that there is no evidence of arraignment of the Defendants before any court of law for any offence in respect of the land points to the fact that the intention of involving Police was purely intimidatory.

 

The law is clear that a party cannot benefit from their own wrongdoing. In African Petroleum v. Owodumi (1994) 8 NWLR (Pt 365) 865, the Supreme Court held that the law will not allow a party to profit from their own misconduct. Similarly, in Adimorah v. Ajufo (1988) 6 SCNJ 18, the court ruled that fraud vitiates all transactions.

 

The court finds that the Plaintiff’s actions constitute intimidation, harassment, fraud, and as such, any agreements or settlements derived from these actions are null and void. In my humble view, the justice of this case lies on the conclusion of or the restoration of the purchase transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendants in respect of Plot 17, Clerks Quarters, Owerri.

 

In conclusion:

1. Suit No: HOW/434/2013 is hereby dismissed in its entirety, as the Plaintiff failed to prove that he lawfully acquired title to Plot 17, Clerks Quarters, Owerri.
2. The court holds that the revocation of the Defendants’ father’s title to the land was null and void, and thus the Plaintiff’s Certificate of Occupancy is invalid.
3. The Plaintiff’s title to Plot 17 based on any certificate of occupancy is set aside.
4. The Defendants are not estopped from challenging the Plaintiff’s title, as the Terms of Settlement were obtained through fraud and duress.
5. The claim of the defendants (Plaintiffs in Suit No HOW/540/2013) succeeds.
6. They are entitled to N18,714,492.20 as the amount owed by the Defendant, Dr. Iwudibia, including accrued interest so as to relinquish title to the plaintiff
7. They are entitled to 21% interest from the date of judgment until full liquidation of the debt.

 

I so hold

 

I.M.Njaka

Judge

19-11-2024

Appearances:

NBE Nwigwe Esq., with KV Mmerem for the Plaintiffs

LUN Nwakaeti Esq., with CJ Amadi Miss for the Defendants