Judgment
EBIOWEI TOBI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the judgment of His Lordship, O. A. Musa J., delivered on 24/6/2021 in Suit No: FCT/HC/BW/CV/238/2020 wherein the claims of the Claimant, the Respondent in this appeal for declaration as the holder of a Statutory Right of Occupancy over the property known as Plot No: 586 in Asokoro District, Abuja was granted among other reliefs. The Respondent claims to be entitled to the Statutory Right of Occupancy over the same property based on the allocation from the Appellant.
From the record of appeal, it is the Respondent’s case that the said property was allocated to it by the Appellant in 1987, and based on the allocation, all the necessary fees have been paid including fees for the recertification. This is to say that the Respondent has met all the requirements put in place by the Appellant for the recertification of the property allocated to it by the Appellant. For this, the Respondent relied on Exhibits AB1-AB8. In spite of meeting all the conditions of the allocation and recertification, the Appellant has failed to finalize the transaction.
What is clear is that, there is a letter of allocation of the subject property from the Appellant to the Respondent and that the Respondent has done all that needs to be done for the allocation to be final. The Appellant’s defence is a total denial of the allocation and that the documents, that is Exhibit AB1-AB8 did not emanate from his office. Indeed, the Appellant expressly made an allegation of forgery against the Respondent, that is to say that, the Appellant expressly alleged that Exhibits AB1-AB8 are not genuine but fake and forged.
In proof of its case, the Respondent as Claimant in the lower Court called a witness and tendered 8 documents. The Appellant as Defendant called one witness denying all the claims of the Respondent and describing all the documents which it certified as forged. At the close of the evidence, the trial Court took the submission of counsel, evaluated the evidence and perused the documents tendered and admitted as exhibits. The Court delivered 29 pages judgment in favour of the Respondent as could be found at pages 116-145 of the records.
