The Registered Trustees Of Apostolic Church Of Christ V. The Registered Trustees Of Grace Church Of Christ: On whether land compulsorily acquired for overriding public purpose can be allocated for religious purpose or place of worship. An insight into the decision of the Supreme Court therein.
The Registered Trustees Of Apostolic Church Of Christ V. The Registered Trustees Of Grace Church Of Christ: On whether land compulsorily acquired for overriding public purpose can be allocated for religious purpose or place of worship. An insight into the decision of the Supreme Court therein.
Citation: (2021)16 NWLR PT. 1801 AT 105.
Courtesy: Moruff O. Balogun, Esq.
Summary of facts:
The appellant is a Christian religious organization which was registered in 1963. It had several branches, which included the Mushin Branch, which eventually broke away from the main organization and was by certificate of registration dated 5th June 1996, exhibit "P1", registered as the Registered Trustees of Grace Church of Christ, the respondent.
In 1976, while he was still a pastor in the employment of the appellant church, the promoter of the respondent, one Pastor Igbeare, purportedly purchased a parcel of land at No. 23/25 Fayemi Street, Ejigbo Town near Mushin from the Agbeke family. The
purchase receipt was in Pastor Igbeare's custody.The respondent applied for Land information in respect of the land which yielded the information that the land had been acquired by the Lagos State Government as far back as 1972, vide Official Gazette No. 60 of 7/12/72 Volume 59.
As at 1976 when the Agbeke family sold the land, it had been divested of title thereto, the respondent by a letter dated 11 April 1997, exhibit "P3", applied in its own name to the Lagos State Government for ratification of the sale. The respondent
was consequently issued a formal letter of allocation of State land through ratification dated 29 April 1997, exhibit "P4". Upon the payment of the necessary fees, the respondent was issued with a certificate of occupancy, exhibit "P2", dated 24h August 1997 in respect thereof registered as No. 68 at page 68 in volume 1997N at the Lagos State Land Registry.
The respondent contended that each branch of the appellant church generated its own funds and that the branches were co-ordinate with and not subordinate to the headquarters; that it had deposited materials at the land in dispute preparatory to the
construction of a permanent site for its church, which got lost; that rather than take steps to object to the issuance of certificate of occupancy in its favour, the appellant proceeded to issue a notice of revival service scheduled to take place on the disputed land; and that it wrote warning letters to the appellant to no avail.
Consequently, the respondent instituted an action against the appellant at the High Court of Lagos State, Ikeja claiming a declaration that it was entitled to the right of occupancy of the land in dispute covered by certificate of occupancy dated 24th August
1997; an order of perpetual injunction restraining the appellant, its privies, servants, agents and/or assigns from trespassing and or further trespassing on the land; specific damages N413,820.00 being the cost of the respondent's fence on the land demolished by the appellant and building materials carried away by the appellant and general damages.
The appellant filed an amended statement of defence and counter-claim. The appellant contended that all its branches including its Mushin branch were under the control and authority of the parent body. It was averred that Pastor Igbeare was trained by the church and posted to the Mushin branch where he served with one Pastor Johnson Oyedipe and their salaries were paid by the parent body; that the land in dispute was purchased with funds belonging to the parent body and in its name; that after the purchase of the property, the purchase receipt was kept in Pastor Igbeare's custody, being the Vice President of the church.
The appellant further averred that after it was discovered that the land was State land, it made efforts to seek a release of the land from government acquisition; and that when Pastor Igbeare got wind of the application, he surreptitiously pursued it on his own without the knowledge of the headquarters and took advantage of the fact that the purchase receipt was in his possession to secure the release in favour of the respondent. It was maintained that the property belonged to the appellant church.
The appellant counter-claimed for a declaration that it is the only person legally entitled to the certificate of occupancy in respect of the land in dispute; a declaration that the certificate of occupancy issued to the respondent is null and void; N500,000.00 as damages for trespass committed by the respondent on the land in dispute; and perpetual injunction restraining the respondent, its agents, servants and privies and or assigns from committing further acts of trespass on the land in dispute.
At the trial, both parties led evidence and tendered documents in support of their respective positions.
At the conclusion of trial, the trial court in a considered judgment dismissed the respondent's claim and granted the appellant's counter-claim in its entirety. The trial court held that the land in dispute belonged to the appellant and that the respondent
had no right to apply for ratification in respect thereof. The court declared the letters of ratification, exhibits "P3” and “P4” and the certificate of occupancy, exhibit "P2", null and void and of no effect.
The respondent was aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court and appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal, in its judgment, allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the trial court and granted all the respondent's reliefs. The court held that the Agbeke family, having been divested of its title to the land by the Government acquisition, had nothing to convey to the appellant. It held that the respondent proved a better title to the land.
The Court of Appeal found that, from the evidence led and exhibits tendered, exhibit "P3" ratified the respondent's occupation in respect of government land, which was said to have been acquired privately while considering the respondent's application; that where there has been acquisition for public purpose as shown by exhibit "P14", all prior interest thereon standing to the benefit of the appellant or the Agbeke family stood extinguished; that such a right may be transferred and re-conferred for overriding public purpose and not for a private purpose; and that it was a public purpose to allocate the land for a place of worship.
Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
Held: Unanimously allowing the appeal.
The judgment of the lower court delivered on 4/2/2011 was hereby set aside. The judgment of the High Court of Lagos State delivered on 10/6/2005 was affirmed.
Costs of N500, 000.00 are awarded against the respondent in favour of the appellant.
The following issues were raised and determined by the Supreme Court:
On whether land compulsorily acquired for overriding public purpose can be allocated for religious purpose or place of worship-
Under the Constitution, religion is not a business or purpose any Government in Nigeria should engage itself in. Section 10 of the 1999 Constitution provides clearly and unambiguously that the Government of the Federation or of a State shall not adopt any
religion as a State religion. That is the outright proclamation of the non-spiritual or non-religious nature of Nigerian government and of governance that must be and is civil, earthly, non- clerical, temporal and unsacred.
Therefore, it is an act of great constitutional profanity for a government, under the Constitution, to compulsorily acquire land for overriding public purpose or interest to allocate the same land for religious purpose or a place of worship. In the instant case, it was perverse for the Court of Appeal to hold that upon the compulsory acquisition of land from the Agbeke family for public purpose by the Lagos State Government, it was for a public purpose to allocate the land to the respondent for a place of worship.
On meaning of ratification and effect of-
Ratification means the confirmation and acceptance of a previous act, thereby making the act valid from the moment it was done. Therefore, the effect of ratification is to put the parties in the same position as they would have been had the act ratified been
previously authorized. In the instant case, from exhibit "P3", the letter of application for ratification of occupation of government land dated 11th April, 1997 and exhibit "P4", the letter of allocation of State land through ratification dated 29th April 1997, what the respondent applied for was the ratification of its holding, which had been acquired
privately.
The act sought to be ratified was the invalid sale made by the Agbeke family. However,
the trial court was right in holding that PW1, who was the Vice President of the Church and who had custody of the receipt issued by the Agbeke family, took advantage of his position and knowledge of the defect in title and used the receipt to apply for the
ratification of the sale by the family. In other words, exhibits “P2", "P3" and "P4" were obtained on the basis of fraudulent misrepresentation.
Per EKO, J.S.C. stated as follows:
On the basis of nemo quod dat non habet the plaintiff/respondent who never existed at the material time of the transaction (in 1976) between the Agbeke family and the appellant (the receipt in evidence of which was the basis of the purported fraudulent ratification) should not have been held to have acquired any title in 1976 ratifiable in 1997.
The main plank, forming the fulcrum of the decision of the lower court, is that since 1976 the government of Lagos State had allegedly compulsorily acquired the area of the disputed land, including the land in dispute, for public purpose and therefore the original title of the Agbeke family had been extinguished; and that it follows that the Agbeke family had no title to pass thereafter. Proceeding thereafter, on nemo dat quod non habet, the lower court held that there is no evidence of the acquisition from the Agbeke family' as claimed by the plaintiff, the respondent herein.
This adverse finding was not appealed by the plaintiff/respondent. Thereafter, the lower court found perversely in face of the plaintiff's case, including the receipt issued in evidence of the 1976 transaction, that the said receipt, by the Agbeke family to the appellant (through Pastor Igbeare), 'exhibit P3 ratifies the occupation of' the plaintiff/respondent on the disputed land said to have been privately acquired by them while the Government of Lagos State was considering their application.
The 1976 purchase receipt shows that the appellant, not the plaintiff/respondent, had
privately acquired the disputed land from the Agbeke family. The PW.1, on this material
fact, admitted that the disputed land belonged to the defendant/appellant and not the
plaintiff/respondent. The decision of the lower court, not considering this material admission against interest, was no doubt perverse.
On whether certificate of occupancy conclusive proof of title-
A certificate of occupancy is only prima facie evidence of title or possession but it is not conclusive proof of title to the land to which it relates. In the instant case, the finding of the trial court that PW1 used his position as the appellant's Vice President and his custody of the purchase receipt issued by the Agbeke family to surreptitiously apply for
exhibit “P2", the certificate of occupancy dated 24th August 1997 registered as No, 68 at page 68 in volume 1997N at the Lagos State Land Registry, was supported by the evidence on record. Therefore, exhibit “P2" was obtained on the basis of fraudulent
misrepresentation and could not confer a valid title on the respondent.
On onus on plaintiff claiming title to land to establish his root of title-
It is imperative for a plaintiff claiming title against another to establish his root of title because that is the source or basis of his claim. Failure of the plaintiff to effectively establish his root of title is very fatal to his claim. Therefore, when a plaintiff fails to prove the root of the title to the land he claims, his case stands dismissed in toto.
In the instant case, the respondent as plaintiff put up a case that it bought the land in dispute from the Agbeke family. However, in 1976, the material time of the transaction, it never existed. Its incorporation came only in 1996, twenty years after. The Court of
Appeal, having found that there was no evidence linking the respondent with the Agbeke family, as it claimed, should have at that juncture dismissed its claim in toto.
On proof of special damages-
Special damages must be strictly proved by the person who claims to be entitled to them. The nature of the proof required depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. However, the evidence must be credible. In the instant case, the respondent
pleaded that it proposed to use the land in dispute as a permanent site to conduct services and that it later deposited building materials on the site. In support of its pleadings, PW1 testified that they bought building materials after they had fenced the
land and that the materials got lost.
There was no pleading that the building materials were removed by the appellant, its servants or agents. The respondent did not establish any nexus between the appellant and the loss sustained. The receipts tendered by the respondent showed that materials
were bought. However, there was no evidence to establish the assertion that they were destroyed by the appellant.
On quality of good judgment-
Clarity in thought and reasoning should be the hallmark of a good judgment.
Per EKO, J.S.C. further stated that :
“The lower court, having found in its judgment at page 418 of the record that there was no evidence linking the plaintiff/respondent with the Agbeke Family, as they had claimed, should have, at this juncture, dismissed their claim in toto. It however proceeded therefrom, in error, to holding, contrary to the plaintiff's claim at the trial; that since the Lagos State Government's acquisition of the area of the disputed land, the Agbeke Family had no title to pass. In this holding, albeit wrongly to sustain the plaintiff's claim, the lower court failed to see that it was the same bad egg, the plaintiff
relied on to hatch the chick in their claim to ratification. Out of the corruptly bad egg in
the plaintiff's hatchery no proper ratification could have enured to the plaintiff/respondent; who were obtaining falsely from the Lagos State Government ratification on the basis of the purchase receipt belonging to another, defendant/appellant.
In 1976, at the time the material purchase receipt was issued to the appellant by the Agbeke Family, the plaintiff/respondent's breakaway faction was still part of the defendant/appellant. Pastor Igbeare who led the secession, like the plaintiff breakaway
group, were still part of the appellant. They had, by then, no separate existence.
The lower court, at pages 418 and 421 of the record, appeared to have dabbled in
dangerously inherent double speak. At page 418, it found that there was no evidence that Lagos State Government acquired the disputed land from Agbeke Family. Then at page 421 it held that the plaintiff/respondent traced their root of title to Lagos State Government and that since 1972 Agbeke Family no longer had proper title to pass, the Lagos State Government having acquired the area of the disputed land, including the disputed land. The reasoning should be a great concern. Clarity in thought and reasoning, I should think, should be the hallmark of a good judgment.”
On whether every error or slip in judgment will result in reversal of judgment-
It is not every error or slip made by a court that will result in the reversal of the decision. The error must be fundamental and must have a crucial effect on the decision, thus occasioning a miscarriage of justice. In the instant case, the reference by the Court of Appeal to a cross-appeal was an error or a slip as there was no attempt, in the course of the judgment, to determine a cross-appeal. However, the appellant did not show what damage it suffered by the error and did not satisfy the requirement that the
error had a crucial effect on the decision of the Court of Appeal.
Courtesy:
Moruff O. Balogun Esq.
Ijebu Ode, Ogun State.
08052871414
09121207712 [WHATSAPP]
