From Godwin Tsa, Abuja
The Abuja division of the Court of Appeal on Monday fixed July 5 for hearing in a property suit brought against a renowned lawyer and former husband to the retired first female Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Mariam Aloma Mukhthar, Mr Jonathan Babatunde Majiyagbe, SAN, and Polaris Bank Limited.
A three-member panel of justices of the appellate court fixed the date after granting an application by counsel to the appellant, Chief Chukwuma-Machukwu Ume, SAN, to substitute the name of Skye Bank Plc to reflect its new name, Polaris Bank Limited.
The court thereafter ordered that all processes relating to the appeal be amended to reflect the name Polaris Bank Limited, which is the 2nd respondent to the appeal.
The court has equally ordered that hearing notice be served on the 2nd respondent which was not represented in court.
Meanwhile, counsel to Majiyagbe, Dr George Ogunyomi, who did not oppose the application to substitute the name of the 2nd respondent, Skye Bank to Polaris Bank Limited, however sought and obtained leave to file his response to the appeal, out of time.
In 2003, the first respondent, Jonathan Majiyagbe, made history by becoming the fist African to be appointed the worldwide President of Rotary Club.
He is also a former Chancellor of the Anglican Diocese of Kano and former member of Body of Benchers. During the court proceedings, Ume tendered a letter from the Deputy Registrar of the court confirming that the correct number for the appeal was CA/A/541/2018 and not CA/A/112/2018.
At the last adjourned date, a three-man panel of the appellate court headed by Justice Abubakar Yahaya, ordered Messrs Chukwuma-Machukwu Ume, SAN, counsel to the appellants and Dr GOA Ogunyomi and Oluwasegun Owa, lawyers to the 1st and 2nd respondents, to correct the discrepancies in the appeal number.
The appellants, Messrs Samuel Nwosu and Chukwuemeka Anyaoha, had sued the respondents, Mr Majiyagbe and Skye Bank Plc before a Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court over the ownership of a property situated at Asokoro, Abuja.
At the last adjourned date, counsel to Majiyagbe, Dr Ogunyomi, drew the attention of the court to discrepancies in the appeal numbers that were assigned by the appellate Court’s registry, prompting the court to adjourn the matter till March 22, when the issues would have been sorted out.
In his submissions, Ume urged the court to grant parties a short so as to rectify the errors.
‘It is hereby ordered that parties in the suit go to the court’s registry immediately to sort out the anomaly in the court processes. The suit is adjourned till March 22 for hearing,’ Justice Yahaha, the presiding judge held.
The suit was instituted before Justice AO Ebong, who delivered a ruling on November 30, 2016, on an interlocutory issue that bordered on amending the court process to bring in an interested party.
According to the appellants’ brief of argument, Mr Majiyagbe is their tenant and allegedly owed a year’s rent.
However, ‘suddenly, Mr Agbe issued a letter to his co-tenants that he is now the landlord of the same premises and that the co-tenants should henceforth pay their rents to him,’ this development triggered the legal battle, according to the appellants.
While the 1st respondent, Mr Agbe, nclaimed in his second amended statement of defence and countcountterclaim that ‘Sam Total owes N60 million to the 2nd respondent, Skye Bank PLC – that it was the forfeiture of mortgage that enabled the 2nd respondent to sell the house to him (Agbe, SAN).’
As a result, the appellants urged the lower court (FCT High Court), presided over by Justice Ebong, to join the alleged debtor, Sam Total Trade Ltd, in order to give its own version of the said debt of N60 million, and for the appellants to inform the court of its version of the alleged Deed of Legal Mortgage already pleaded by the 1st respondent.
But the respondents, Mr Agbe and Skye Bank Plc, vehemently opposed the appellants desire to bring in the necessary party, alleging ‘abuse of court process,’ which Justice Ebong upheld.
In their grounds of appeal, the appellants pointed out that the trial court erred in law when it held that: ‘It is therefore the plaintiff’s claim endorsed on the writ of summons and statement of claim that determines who the necessary parties to the suit are…’
The appellants maintained that the court ‘misdirected itself’ in several of its reasonings concerning the ruling.
In the appellants’ pleadings, they urged the three-member panel of the Appeal Court to declare that Mr Agbe has no right whatsoever to issue his co-tenants any documents purporting to claim that the defendant (respondent), is the landlord of the property, Plot 222 Shehu Shagari Way, Asokoro, Abuja.
‘An order of injunction restraining the defendant either by himself or by his agent, assigns or any person howsoever claiming through him from asserting any right of ownership over the property Plot 222 Shehu Shagari Way, Asokoro, Abuja, or Plot 222 Cadastral Zone A4, Abuja or doing anything that derogates from the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs (appellants) right of ownership of the property,’ the appellants prayed the court.
