ABUJA (Sundiata Post) – In what appears as a protracted ownership battle, a firm, All Purpose Shelter Limited (APSL), has in its application, asked the court to restrain 707 traders from forcefully gaining entrance and possessing the N6.5bn Wuye modern market for business activities. The market has been a subject of litigation since last year after it was commissioned by former President Goodluck Jonathan.
To this end, the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) has fixed November 19 to rule on whether it has jurisdiction to entertain the motion for a stay of proceedings to hear an application, and to set aside the warrant of possession issued to the traders by the court.
The 707 traders led by one Abah Denish, had dragged the minister of the FCT, the Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA), APSL and Abuja Investment and Property Development Company (AIPDC) to the court over allocation of shops at the market.
But one of the defendants in the case, APSL, has filed a motion before the court asking it to set aside the writ of possession issued to the traders by the court on June 9.
The firm also asked the court to restrain them from forcefully taking possession of the market.
When the application came up for argument, counsel to the firm, Jubril Okutepa (SAN) told the court to turn it down on the ground that the applicant did not file any appeal at the court of appeal to warrant a stay of proceedings at the court.
Okuteba also told the court that the crucial ground for granting a stay of proceeding is that the applicant must have filed an appeal at the court of appeal.
He accused the traders of recklessness because of the warrant of possession already issued to them by the court.
He said, “They (the traders) are not Sherriff or Bailiff. Will it be reasonable for a party in whose favour a judgement is given to take it upon himself to execute the judgement.
The warrant of possession issued to the applicants (traders) has given them licence to do what they like.
“When a motion for stay of proceedings is intended for a client to further strategize, the court is duty-bound to turn it down”, Okutepa argued.
Meanwhile, counsel to the traders, Mr. S.C. Peters, had earlier told the court to grant a stay in the matter on the ground that an appeal is already pending at the court of appeal in the matter before the court.
“What is required for the court to stay proceedings is the hearing notice of the appeal at the court of appeal. Once an appeal is pending at the court of appeal, the lower court has it as a duty to stay proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal,” Peters argued.
In the same vein, a stay of the execution of the judgement of the court has also been filed by the AIPDC as well as an appeal against the judgement.
In the motion for stay of execution of judgement filed by James Idih, the court is being called upon to declare that the plaintiffs in the suit lack the locus standi to institute the action.
They are also challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear the matter.
In the appeal, the company said the judgement is against the weight of evidence before it.
It also said that the judge erred in law in his failure to appreciate the quality of evidential burden that had to be discharged by the party who asserts.
Justice O.A. Musa had on March 23 ordered that the traders should be allowed access into the market after paying grounded rents and other statutory charges.
But the traders are claiming that the court had given them unfettered access to the market saying that the FCT should bear the cost of the construction of the market.
Justice Musa, in one breath in his judgement, after going through submissions of counsel in the matter said, “Also the 4th defendant (the firm) told the court that it was issued a piece of land at Wuye District, Abuja by the 1st and 2nd defendants (FCT minister and FCDA) which was covered by exhibit ‘F’ (Certificate of Occupancy) dated November, 2004.
Therefore, it is clear that both the plaintiff and the 4th defendant got their grant from the same grantor that is 1st and 2nd defendants and from simple arithmetic, the plaintiffs’s offer was first in time, that is 2002 as against 4th defendant’s own which was in 2004.
“From the totality of the. Evidence, no single evidence to sho or prove that the 1st and 2nd defendants either withdraw or revoke the plaintifs’ offer.
“To this end, having fortified myself with the above decisions, iit is my considered opinion that exhibit AA being the first in time definitely takes priority over and above exhibit F. I so hold.”
In another breath, after the plaintiffs amended their statement of claim for a declaration that they are not under any lawful obligation or duty to pay any amount of money over and above the various specific amount of money demanded by the 1st and 2nd defendants from the plaintiffs for the allocation of shops and open spaces in the market.
Also, after asking the court to declare that the 1st and 2nd defendants shall be liable for and bear the cost of the construction of the shops allocated to the plaintiffs.
Justice Musa said: “the plaintiffs (the over 700 traders) did not lead evidence to sustain these claims. It is trite law that the court cannot speculate on the evidence not place before it. In support of this, see the casee of IGBELE Vs. State (2006) 6MWLR (pt.975) 100 at 199 paras F-G wheree it was held that: This court has decided that it is trite law that court should not speculate in evidence but decide on evidence presented before it.
“More so, a declaration on these claims will amount to a court declaring that the plaintiff should not pay even grounded rent and other statutory fees which the plaintiff are bound to pay under the law. I am not ready to do that heree. Therefore, these two claims referred above of the plaintiffs cannot be granted for the reason stated herein. On that not, they aree hereby refused accordingly.
In the final analysis, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiffs in view of the evidence they led, have proved their case in part and for that reason, the plaintiff case succeeds in part and fail in part. I so hold”.