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 21/6/2021 in suit No: FCT/HC/BW/CV/242/2020 granting the claims of the Claimant, the 1st Respondent in this appeal to wit: a declaration that the 1st Respondent is the holder of a Statutory Right of Occupancy over the property known as Plots No: 561 & 562 within Asokoro District, Abuja to which the 2nd Respondent also laid claim to among other assorted reliefs.
Both the 1st and 2nd Respondents claim to be entitled to the Statutory Right of Occupancy over the same property based on the allocation from the Appellant. From the record of this appeal, it is the 1st 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 1st 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 1st Respondent relied on Exhibits AB1-AB8. However, 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 1st Respondent, and that the 1st Respondent has done all that is needed to be done for the allocation to be final. Within that period, the 2nd Respondent also claimed that the same property was allocated to her.
The case of the 2nd Respondent is suspect as there is no documentary evidence to support its claim. From the pleadings and the evidence of the 2nd Respondent, it is clear that the 2nd Respondent acknowledged the existence of Exhibits AB1-AB8 which are documents evidencing the allocation made to the 1st Respondent by the Appellant.
Having made this concession, the 2nd Respondent should have proved by evidence, the fact that the allocation made to the 1st Respondent was no more valid, either because it has been revoked by the Appellant in accordance with due process of law, or there is a Court order to the effect that the allocation is no more valid. There is no sure pleadings and evidence before the lower Court in respect of either. The Appellant’s defence is a total denial of the allocation and that the documents, that is Exhibits AB1-AB8 did not emanate from his office.
