The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, has dismissed an appeal arising from a dispute over a Federal Government residential property in Kubwa, Abuja, and upheld the right of ownership of an employee of the federal government, Ime Joseph over the property.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Okon Abang for a three-member panel, concerned an appeal marked, CA/ABJ/156/2024, filed by Abdulrahman Dimis against Ime Joseph, the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (MFCT) and the Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA).
The dispute centred on House 5, Block 300B, Federal Housing, Kubwa; a three-bedroom semi-detached bungalow originally allocated to Joseph after his transfer from Lagos to Abuja as a Federal Government employee.
Joseph had sought to purchase the property under the Federal Government’s policy for the disposal of government residential houses, which gave existing occupants an opportunity to exercise a right of first refusal before properties were offered to members of the public.
The court heard that Joseph completed an expression-of-interest form and paid the prescribed non-refundable deposit, stated in the proceedings as N10,000. He subsequently wrote to the relevant authorities requesting that a formal letter of offer be issued to enable him complete the purchase.
Despite his repeated demands, the authorities allegedly failed to issue the letter of offer. Joseph consequently commenced legal proceedings, seeking declarations and orders compelling the authorities to recognise his entitlement under the housing disposal scheme.
While the dispute was pending, the property became the subject of a purported sale through a walk-in bidding process to Dimis. The appellant subsequently took possession of the premises, maintaining that he had lawfully purchased the house from the FCT authorities.
However, Justice Abang, in the judgement, found a significant discrepancy in the identity of the property allegedly sold to Dimis. According to the court, documentary evidence showed that the property offered to him was House 5, Block 300A, rather than House 5, Block 300B occupied by Joseph.
The court relied particularly on Exhibit G, the letter of offer issued to Dimis, which described the property offered to him as House 5, Block 300A. The panel also noted that Dimis acknowledged during cross-examination that there were two separate semi-detached bungalows in the area.
Justice Abang held that, the trial court was right to have asked the appellant to vacate the property adding that, Dimis had no contractual entitlement to House 5, Block 300B, the property occupied by Joseph and observed that proper due diligence before the purchase would have revealed the circumstances surrounding the occupation and ownership of the disputed property.
In one of the strongest observations in the judgment, the court stated that the appellant had not purchased the property in dispute but had instead “purchased litigation” adding that, a prospective purchaser ought to have investigated whether the property was occupied and whether the occupant had an existing right under the government housing disposal policy.
The appellate court also upheld the order of mandamus made by the trial court compelling the FCT authorities to issue Joseph a letter of offer. It held that Joseph had established a legal right capable of protection because he had been allocated the property as a public servant, completed the required documentation and paid the prescribed deposit.
The court was particularly critical of the manner in which Joseph and his family were removed from the property while the case was pending. It noted that the trial court had issued an injunction restraining the defendants from unlawfully ejecting Joseph, yet the eviction allegedly proceeded despite the subsisting order.
Describing the conduct as an affront to the rule of law, the Court of Appeal stressed that parties who submit a dispute to court must await the outcome rather than resort to self-help, emphasising that a court order remains binding until it is set aside, whether or not a party believes the order was properly made.
The court relied on established Supreme Court authorities condemning self-help and executive lawlessness, stressing that government institutions and private citizens alike are required to obey valid orders of court, as allowing parties to disregard court orders would undermine public confidence in the judiciary and weaken the rule of law.
The Court of Appeal consequently affirmed the verdict of the trial court, dismissed the appeal for lacking in merit and awarded N3 million in costs against the appellant in favour of the Ime Joseph. It also exercised its appellate powers to make consequential orders aimed at restoring Joseph and his family to possession of the disputed property.
END
Comments