Chicason Group of Co. Ltd. V. Oteri: On whether landlord permitted to recover possession by self-help or forcible ejection and consequence thereof. An insight into the decision of the Court of Appeal therein. Courtesy: Moruff O. Balogun Esq.

Citation: (2021) 6 NWLR PT. 1772 AT 222.

PARTIES IN FULL:
CHICASON GROUP OF COMPANY LIMITED
PETER NKEREUWEM
CHIEF NWOKE
V.
MR. TSEGHOMI JIBRIN OTERI

Summary of fact:
The respondent sued the appellants. He challenged his ejection from the one bedroom apartment situate at Plot 779 (No.9) Ona Crescent, Maitama Abuja. According to the respondent, he paid N450,000 as rent for the apartment and moved in as a tenant. But the 2nd and 3rd appellants (employees of the appellant) together with armed policemen attached to the office of the 1st appellant forcefully evicted him from the apartment on 25th October 2015.
The respondent sought six reliefs including damages against the appellants jointly and severally.

The appellants’ case was that the apartment (property) belonged to one Chief Alexander Chika Okafor; that it was not let to the respondent by the Owner; and that the appellants had no transaction with Ismaila Yusuf Ahmed, Kel Tee & Company or the respondent in respect of the apartment. Further, the 2nd and 3rd appellants admitted ejecting the respondent from the apartment

At trial, the parties called witnesses in proof of their respective pleadings. After full consideration of the parties’ respective case the trial court found the respondent proved his claim for damages based on wrongful eviction by the appellants. So, the trial court entered judgment against the appellants, and awarded N10,000,000 as general damages to the respondent.

The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal. They challenged the jurisdiction of the trial court on ground of non-joinder of the owner of the property from which the respondent was ejected. They argued that since Chief Alexander Chika the Owner of the property was not joined in the suit, the court lacked Jurisdiction. The appellants also argued that since the respondent did not recognize the appellants as his landlord, he was not entitled notices from the appellants. In addition, the appellants argued that the sum of N10,000,000, which the trial court awarded as general damages in favour of the respondent was excessive.

Held: Unanimously dismissing the appeal in part.

The following issues were raised and determined by the Court of Appeal.

On Whether landlord permitted to recover possession by self-help or forcible ejection and consequence thereof-
A tenant whether lawful or illegal cannot be ejected contrary to legal process. Any landlord or agent of a landlord who ejects a tenant, whether legal or illegal, without complying with legal process is liable in damages. In this case, even if the respondent was a trespasser, he must be dealt with according to law.
But the appellants admittedly did not do so.

On Principles guiding assessment of general damages-
A trial court has discretionary power to award general damages. That is, in award of damages, the discretion is that of the trial Judge. The court, however, in awarding general damages is to assess the damages based on an injury that naturally flowed from the wrong suffered by the claimant.
The gravity of the damages awarded will be based on an injury suffered naturally which flows from what the respondent suffered.

On Principles guiding assessment of general damages by appellate court and when will interfere with damages awarded by trial court-
Where the trial court has assessed damages, an appellate court can either agree with the assessment or in an appropriate case, vary the amount. Where the trial court made no assessment, an appellate court can undertake to make the assessment itself if there exists on the record enough material, enough evidence, on which such assessment can be based. The appellate court will also consider all the surrounding circumstances including the period of time the case has lasted and the urgent need to bring the litigation to finality. In this case, having regard to the entire facts and the injury suffered by the respondent, the trial court awarded damages without assessing the circumstances of the entire case and thus the award is excessive. Consequently, the Court of Appeal would interfere with the award made by the trial court by reducing the sum awarded from N10,000,000 to N3,000,000.

On whether use of self-help permitted in democratic society-
Per NIMPAR, J.C.A.:
“The point must be made that self help cannot be tolerated under any guise in a democratic society which professes to the rule of law. It is sad that policemen posted to a private individual will be used to commit illegalities against law abiding citizens. The appellant should know that there is a penalty for such acts.”

On nature and importance of jurisdiction-
Jurisdiction of a court is the competence of the court to handle a matter. It is fundamental and the basis of adjudication.

On types of jurisdiction-
There is substantive jurisdiction and procedural jurisdiction. In this case, the appellants were not challenging the substantive jurisdiction. They were challenging the procedural jurisdiction.

On effect of defect in procedure-
Any defect in procedure does not divest the court of jurisdiction and does not go to the root of the matter. Depending on the defect, it may affect the outcome of the case but generally it does not.

On whether non-joinder of party to an action can defeat action-
Ordinarily, non-joinder of a party, except where there are statutory provisions to the contrary, cannot by itself, defeat an action. In this case, the issue of jurisdiction raised by the appellants was based on non-joinder of a party. But non-joinder of a party cannot defeat an action. Therefore, the failure to join Chief Okafor Alexander Chika as a party to the suit is not a jurisdictional issue, and it cannot defeat the action. In the circumstances, the trial court had jurisdiction to determine the action.

Courtesy:
Moruff O. Balogun Esq.
Ijebu Ode, Ogun State.
08052871414