Judgment
SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI, J.S.C. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The Appellants herein were the plaintiffs in the trial Court while the Respondents were the defendants/counter-claimants. In paragraph 30 of their further, further amended statement of claim, the Appellants as plaintiffs at the trial Court claimed jointly and severally against the Respondents as follows:- a. Declaration that the policy of Benue State Government of disposing its quarters to civil/public servants, on owner occupier basis, which was later on extended to cover elected officers does not exclude the plaintiffs. b.
Declaration that the plaintiffs who are actual occupiers of their respective allocated quarter, who have indicated interest in buying the houses, should be given the first option to buy houses but any other interested person who is not in actual occupation thereof. c. Declaration that the plaintiffs who are in actual occupation of their respective houses, who have applied and paid the application fees to buy the houses ought to have been formally informed that they (sic) applications were not approved and reasons thereof before putting out the houses to other intending buyers. d.
Declaration that the purported revocation of each of the plaintiffs, tenancy/notice to quit same and subsequent allocation to others who are not in occupation is inequitable, unjust, unfair and discriminatory against the plaintiffs, unconstitutional and same should be set aside. e. Declaration that each of the plaintiffs having been legally allocated the various government quarters, as civil servants in Benue State, which they have indicated interest in purchasing is more qualified as an occupier to be given the first option of the same on owner occupier basis. f.
Declaration that the purported revocation of each of the plaintiffs, tenancy and quit notice on same as well as the subsequent allocation of the respective quarters being occupied by each of the plaintiffs to other person is contrary to the government’s policy to assign these houses on “owner occupier” basis is null and void and of no effect whatsoever. g. Order of the Court setting aside the purported allocation of the houses occupied by the plaintiffs. h.
