‘No oral evidence can contradict, discredit documentary evidence’

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT JABI THIS THURSDAY THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016 BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE .Y. HALILU SUIT NO: CV/2019/16 BETWEEN ALHAJA MOROOPHAT OBANIKORO ……. APPLICANT AND ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION (EFCC) …… RESPONDENT   JUDGMENT  This is a Fundamental Right […]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY

IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT JABI

THIS THURSDAY THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016

BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE .Y. HALILU

SUIT NO: CV/2019/16

BETWEEN

ALHAJA MOROOPHAT OBANIKORO ……. APPLICANT

AND

ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION (EFCC) …… RESPONDENT

 

JUDGMENT 

This is a Fundamental Right action brought pursuant to sections 43 and 46 (1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as Amended), Article 14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap. 10 LFN, 2004.

The applicant, Alhaja Moroophat Obanikoro, approached this Court praying for the following reliefs:-

a. A declaration that the invasion and sealing of the applicant’s property situate and known as Plot No. 419, Katampe Extension, Cadastral Zone N19, Abuja seized by the officials of the respondent on June 17th, 2016 constitutes a gross violation of the applicants Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Section 43 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Article 14 of the African Charter on Humans and People’s Right Ratification and Enforcement Act, Cap 10, LFN, 2004.

b. An order setting aside the sealing of the applicant’s property aforesaid.

c. A mandatory order directing the respondent to unseal the applicant’s property aforesaid.

d. An order directing the respondent to tender unreserved public apology to the applicant for the unlawful and unconditional invasion and sealing of the applicant’s property aforesaid.

e. The sum of N200,000,000 (two hundred million naira) only as general damages for the unlawful and unconstitutional invasion and sealing of the applicants’ property aforesaid.

f. And Order restraining the respondent whether by its officers, servants, privies, assigns or agents from entering the said premises and or harassing any of the applicants’ tenants in the property pending the hearing and determination of the suit.

g. And for such other orders or further orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance.

In support of the originating motion is an affidavit of 14 paragraph deposed to by the applicant herself. In her deposition, the applicant deposed copiously that she is the owner of the property situate and known as plot N. 419, Katampe Extension, Cadastral Zone B19, Abuja the subject matter of litigation. It is the deposition of the applicant that the officer of the respondent stormed her premises which is consists of terrace block of 4 apartments of 3 bedroom each with a bedroom attached boys quarters and sealed same vide Exhibit “A1” – “A5” attached.

That the action of the respondent as related to her above and that she is not under any investigation by the respondent as she was never invited by the respondent.

The applicant further stated that prior to the action of the respondent on June 17th, 2016 the officials of the respondents had also invaded her husband’s properties/houses situate at No. 10 Mojisola Onikoyi Street, Onikoyi, by Banana Island, Lagos. The applicant avers that the property in contention was developed by herself upon purchase of the plot on June 8th, 2007 from Mr. Ibrahim Umar who then had the offer of statutory right of occupancy. The documents were annexed as Exhibits “B1”, “B2” and “C” respectively.

That consequent on the purchase of the plot she commissioned his Architect (Mr. Bayo Ajisafe) to designed and build the property which he did but all in the name of the assignor (Mr. Ibrahim Umar).

Upon service, the respondent filed notice of preliminary objection and respondent’s counter affidavit to the applicants’ motion on notice. Being a Fundamental Human Rights matter, and having filed a preliminary objection and taken together with the substantive application, I shall attempt to disprove of the preliminary objection.

The question that will follow  naturally is whether the matter under consideration fall exclusively under Federal High Court? Section 46 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as (amended) and Order 11 Rule 1 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009 become necessary to be examined.

The above provisions are to the effect that any High Court in the state where the cause of action arose can handle or entertain the suit insofar as same is founded on breach or likely breach of the applicants Fundamental Right.

Order 1 Rule 2 of the Fundamental Right (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 1979 which came into force on 1st January, 1980 defines “Court” as meaning “the Federal High Court or the High Court of a state” What this means is this. Both the Federal High Court and the High Court of a state have concurrent jurisdiction, as application may therefore be made either to the Judicial Division of the Federal High Court in the state or the High Court of the state in which the breach occurred, is occurring or about to occur.”

It is now firmly settled peradventure that documentary evidence is the best evidence. It is the best proof of the contents of such document, and no oral evidence will be allowed to discredit or contradict the contents thereof, except where fraud is pleaded. See AG BENDEL STATE VS UBA LTD (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt. 337) 547 at 563.

See also TEJU INVESTMENT AND PROPERTY CO. LTD VS SUBAIR (2016) CA. I have seen Exhibits “B1” mentioned in paragraph 9 of the affidavit in support of the application for enforcement of Fundamental Human Right.

I have also seen Exhibit “EFCC 7C” annexed by Respondent. Both Exhibits are offers of Statutory Right of occupancy in the names of Ibrahim Umar and Musiliu Obanikoro respectively. The offer of Statutory Right of Occupancy in the name of Ibrahim Umar is dated 28th May, 2007, whereas that of Musiliu Obanikoro is dated 26th August, 2014.

The law with respect to land instruments in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) is clear. No instrument shall be pleaded or used in evidence unless same is registered at the applicable land registry.

The said document therefore, has fallen short of the required mandatory registration standard and could not have been used in evidence to show title. It shall be discountenanced for the purpose of considering this application for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.

It is hereby so discountenanced.

Qst. Where then stands the applicant in law?

Qst. Was the allocation made to Musiliu Obanikoro faked or its original?

Qst. Why is applicant still brandishing Exhibit “C” as evidence of valid title when whereas another title on same land has been made to Musiliu Obanikoro?

Qst. Were fees paid for all the statutory charges by Ibrahim Umar?

Qst. Where is the evidence?

Qst. Is applicant aware that Musiliu Obanikoro was granted title over the same plot housing the property in issue? If yes, what did she do?

Qst. Is her title, if any still substituting?

From the totality of what has played out as aptly stated in the affidavit in support of the application for the enforcement of Fundamental Human Right and the counter affidavit filed by the respondent in opposition, it is crystal clear that the subject matter in issue does not have any legal nexus with the applicant. Supposing, without conceding that it does have, with the relationship of applicant and Musiliu Obanikoro who is being investigated by the respondent (EFCC), it would not be out of place, to investigate the applicant and her source of income.

Enforcement of Fundamental Human Right matters is usually begun vide motion on notice with affidavit and written address.

Needless to mention that it is fought and won on the paragraphs of affidavit and written address. For all intents and purposes, respondents are a reputable commission with mandate to ensure Nigeria becomes, corrupt free and the mandate to bring to book those adjudged corrupt and also repatriate in liaison with other sister agencies abroad, monies stashed offshore believed to have been gotten corruptly.

Applicant who desperately made efforts to sway this court vide her affidavit deposition, has failed to convince the court legally speaking from her title documents, whether the said title still subsists. Applicant has no place to stand in law to challenge the respondent’s action.

There is no right of respondent known to law breached here worthy of any judicial injunction by way of order. The primary relief is declaratory in nature.

The affidavit evidence of the respondent is more superior and very technically and legally convincing.

I shall refuse this application because it is most unmeritorious and specially packaged to deceive this court. God forbid.

On the whole therefore, suit No. CV/2019/16 having failed to meet the requirement of the law is hereby dismissed.

Justice Y. Halilu Hon. Judge 

1st December, 2016

 

APPEARANCE:

M. A Ebute – for applicant with Emmanuel Onoja.

Farouk Abdullahi – for respondent.