Judgment
UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, J.S.C. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The Appellant was allocated plots of land measuring about 8000m2 delineated as Plots 216, 217, 218, 219, 225, 226, 227, 228, Wuye District, Abuja, vide a letter of offer of Terms of Grant/Conveyance of approval dated 4/1/1995 as shown at page 8 of the record. The acceptance was made after 36 days by the Appellant and submitted same to the 1st-3rd Respondents. See pages 8 and 9 of the record.
The design of the building was carried out by the Appellant’s architect but the development of the land was stalled because infrastructures were yet to be in place and the Certificate of Occupancy was not yet issued. In the interim, the Appellant on 18/10/2000 noticed that some unknown persons herein referred to as the 4th Respondent, took possession of the land and dug foundation to commence development thereon. Inquiries made at the office of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents to ascertain the identity of the 4th Respondent failed. Besides, the Appellant could not also locate its file with them.
This consequently caused the Appellant to file an action before the Federal High Court, Abuja, on 22/3/2004, seeking for the reliefs contained at page 7 of the record.
The 1st to 3rd Respondents without filing statement of defence challenged the jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain the suit vide a preliminary objection on the ground that it is statute barred by virtue of Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act, 1990. The trial Court upheld the preliminary objection and dismissed the suit. The Appellant lost when it appealed to the lower Court, hence this appeal. The Appellant has distilled 3 issues for the determination of this appeal thus: 1.
Whether the Justices of the Court of Appeal considered the justice of the appeal before them when they ignored and failed to determine the nature of relationship subsisting between the parties canvassed by the Appellant. 2. Were the Justices of the Court of Appeal right when they held that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents were entitled to protection offered by the Public Officers Protection Act. 3.
Was the Court below right in affirming the decision of the trial Court when it failed to avert its mind to the fact that the trial Court has no jurisdiction in entertaining the preliminary objection of the Respondents?
