LawPavilion Online


Back

BOMBOY CHUKWUDI v. BRIG. GENERAL SAM I. MOMAH & ORS

(2017) LPELR-42675(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Thursday, the 20th day of July, 2017

CA/E/647/2013


Before Their Lordships

TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

JOSEPH TINE TUR Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI-YUSUFF Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria


Between

BOMBOY CHUKWUDI - Appellant(s)

AND

1. BRIG. GENERAL SAM I. MOMAH
2. CRYSTAL PALACE HOTELS LTD.
3. ATT. GENERAL OF ENUGU STATE - Respondent(s)


Summary

INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on Land Law.

FACTS:
Bomboy Chukwudi (the appellant) took out a writ of summons against Brigadier-General Sam I. Momah & Ors. (1st and 2nd respondents) before the High Court of Justice, Enugu State holden at Enugu . Accompanying the writ of summons was a statement of claim. The dispute was heard on the plaintiff's Further Amended Statement of Claim and an Amended Statement of Defence filed by the 1st and 2nd respondents. The appellant filed a reply to the 1st and 2nd respondents' Amended Statement of Defence. The 3rd respondent also filed a statement of defence.

???The parties called oral evidence supported by documentary exhibits. Learned Counsel submitted written addresses. Odugu, J., considered the oral and documentary evidence before finding in favour of the 1st and 2nd respondents that the property in dispute was not that of the appellant but the 1st and 2nd respondents. The suit was dismissed.

Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit the appellant filed this appeal.



ISSUES:
The appeal was decided on the Appellants issues viz:

"1. Whether the findings and decisions of the two Judicial Commissions of Inquiry and the contents of the Government White Paper founded on them are binding on the plaintiff and constitutes judgment in rem despite the fact that the appellant was not invited to appear before the two Commissions to defend himself and was not a party before the two Commissions during their sittings and deliberations (Ground 1).
2. Whether the failure to serve on the appellant the Notice to appear before the two Judicial Commissions of Inquiry coupled with the Notice of Revocation of his Right over property in dispute did not vitiate the purported revocation (Ground 2)."



DECISION/HELD:
The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.


Read Full Judgment