The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja has dismissed an appeal filed by Triples G. Investment Limited in a property dispute over a 2.8-hectare parcel of land in Sabon Lugbe, Abuja, describing the case as “frivolous,” “reckless” and “hopeless.”
The appellate court also accused the appellant of deliberately filing the appeal in an attempt to “tie the hands of the trial court” and prevent it from hearing the substantive dispute.
Justice Okon Abang, who delivered the lead judgment of the three-member panel on Tuesday in appeal No. CA/ABJ/CV/1261/2024, held that the appeal was incompetent and amounted to an abuse of the court process.
The dispute arose from a pending suit before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory concerning the alleged ownership of Plot 1851, Sabon Lugbe, measuring approximately 2.8 hectares.
Triples G. Investment Limited, which instituted the substantive suit against Olabode Olaleri and another, had on February 27, 2024, filed a preliminary objection challenging the competence of the respondents’ counterclaim and the jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain it.
Counsel to the appellant argued that ownership and title to the disputed property had already been determined in favour of Triples G. Investment Limited in an earlier suit instituted against the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory and the Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA).
The respondents, however, disputed the claim.
In dismissing the preliminary objection, the trial court held that the parties and subject matter in the earlier case were different from those in the pending suit.
It further held that the respondents were not privies of the FCDA or the Minister of the FCT and that nothing in the earlier judgment relied upon by the appellant established that Triples G. Investment Limited was the owner of the disputed property.
Dissatisfied with the ruling, the company appealed.
But Justice Abang held that the decision being challenged was interlocutory and did not warrant what he described as the “indecent haste” with which the appellant approached the Court of Appeal.
“My Lords, I think this interlocutory appeal was dead on arrival. I so hold,” he declared.
The judge held that the trial court’s dismissal of the preliminary objection was an interlocutory decision and not a final judgment capable of being appealed as of right on the grounds filed.
He further observed that the two original grounds of appeal contained in the notice of appeal were grounds of mixed law and fact, for which the appellant was required to obtain leave before filing a valid appeal.
“Counsel should look at the law before you file an appeal. We have a lot of work here. Don’t just come here as if we are a Magistrates’ Court,” Justice Abang said.
He held that the appellant needed to obtain leave of the trial court within the prescribed period before filing the appeal.
According to him, the original notice of appeal was incompetent and could not subsequently be amended to cure the fundamental defect.
“The appellant misled this court,” he said, adding that the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal on its merits.
Justice Abang stressed that although the right of appeal is guaranteed by law and the Constitution, it could not be created by counsel’s assumption or imagination.
“Notwithstanding the position of counsel at the bar, you can’t go on appeal on your imagination,” he said.
The court, nevertheless, proceeded to consider the substantive issues raised in the appeal.
Justice Abang found that the appellant, having commenced the action as claimant, could not rely on res judicata as a “sword” to advance its claim while simultaneously seeking to use estoppel to prevent the respondents from pursuing their counterclaim.
He described the appeal as an abuse of the court process and held that it was deliberately brought to frustrate the proceedings at the trial court.
“The appeal is clearly frivolous and it was deliberately filed to tie the hands of the trial court from hearing the case,” the judge held.
He consequently described the application as “reckless” and “hopeless.”
*Appeal Court dismisses Kubwa property case*
In a separate judgment delivered the same day, Justice Abang dismissed another appeal involving a property in Kubwa, Abuja, while ordering the restoration of the former occupier.
The appeal, marked CA/ABJ/156/2024, was filed by Abdulrahman Dimis against Ime Joseph, the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory and the Federal Capital Development Authority.
The appellate court upheld the decision of the trial court ordering Dimis to vacate House 5, Block 300B, which was occupied by Joseph.
Justice Abang held that Dimis had no contractual entitlement to the property and noted that proper due diligence before its purchase would have revealed the circumstances surrounding its occupation and ownership.