Judgment
OBIETONBARA OWUPELE DANIEL-KALIO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment ): The appeal here is against the judgment of the Federal High Court (the lower Court) delivered on the 21st day of November, 2013 by I.N. Buba, J. The matter began de novo before the said judge, the Court of Appeal having ordered that it be commenced de novo following the setting aside of the judgment of the earlier trial Judge, Abutu, CJ. The said earlier trial judge had held that the action was statute barred. The case was commenced by way of an Originating Summons.
The 1st-6th Respondents (the Plaintiffs at lower Court), sued for themselves and on behalf of 144 evicted tenants of Eric Moore Towers, Surulere, Lagos. By the said Originating Summons, the said Respondents claimed to be entitled to be offered by, and to pay the Appellants (the 1st, 3rd and 4th defendants at the lower Court), the reserved bidder’s price to purchase the said Eric Moore Towers, under the Federal Government’s Monetization Policy of 2003. The 1st-6th Respondents by their originating summons, sought from the lower Court, a determination of the following questions: 1.
Whether the Federal Government’s Monetization Policy of fringe benefits in the Federal Public Service, 2003, was meant to apply to the plaintiffs in the same way it was meant to apply to other public servants. 2. Whether the decision of the defendants not to apply the residential accommodation aspect of the said policy to the plaintiffs is not arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, inequitable, wrong and unconstitutional. 3. Whether the defendants, in deed, have up until now failed to apply the residential aspect of the said policy with respect to the plaintiffs. 4.
What is the correct procedure under the monetization policy aforesaid for the monetization of Federal Government buildings occupied by public servants? 5. Whether if the defendants have not correctly applied the said policy to the plaintiffs, the defendants should not be compelled to correctly apply the said policy to the plaintiffs. 6. Were the defendants right, in view of the Federal Government’s monetization policy of 2003 and other relevant laws, in forcefully evicting the plaintiffs and without statutory notices and procedure?
