By Lukman Olabiyi
A firm, Prolynx Consultancy Limited, has rejected verdict of Justice S.O Falola of the Osun State High Court, Osogbo, in the suit it filed against Thirty Three Nigeria Limited,and Mr Kunle Omisore ,over alleged breach of contractual agreement.
The firm in its appeal, pending before the Court of Appeal sitting in Akure, Ondo State, filed through it counsel, Mr Adeboye Sobanjo, held that the trial judge erred in law by abandoning the real issues brought before his court to adjudicate on matters of fundamental human rights, which was irrelevant to the case.
The plaintiff, had dragged the two respondents before the court, over a case of breach of contract over the development of a parcel of land in Osun Sate capital.
Prolynx Consultancy Limited in the suit before Justice Falola, sought an order to compel the defendants, Thirty Three Nigeria Limited, and Mr Kunle Omisore, to comply with the terms and conditions spelt out in the Residential Houses Construction Agreement, and the irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 24th September, 2020 for the development of a parcel of land measuring approximately 2,790 hectares at Ilobu GRA, Olorunda Local Government Area of Osun State .
The respondent, Thirty Three Nigeria Limited, and Omisore filed counter suit before the same court for the enforcement of his fundamental human rights.
However, after reviewing the case, Justice Falola, in his judgment, on the suit, ordered the representatives of Prolynx Consultancy Limited, out of the disputed parcel of land for allegedly using hoodlums to sustain a hold on the disputed land. The court ruled that;“the constant use of hoodlums to prevent Mr Omisore, from having access to the property was in breach of the fundamental human rights of the Applicant as enshrined in sections 43 and 44 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
The Plaintiff’s Counsel, Mr Sobanjo, rejected the judgment, stressing that the Judge erred by abandoning the real issues brought before his court to adjudicate on matters of fundamental human rights which was irrelevant to the case before him.
The counsel pointed out that the crux of the respondents’ case before the trial court, was about nothing else, but contract and ownership of land that is outside the purview of fundamental human rights on which the Judge based his judgment.
Sobanjo stated that the respondents’ action before the trial court was incompetent, while the facts deposed to in his affidavit in support of the application before the trial court was at variance with the reliefs put before the court.
Sobanjo ,held that the trial Judge erred in law, and misdirected himself when he declared in his judgment that: “based on the above premise, I hereby, hold that the contractual relationship between Applicant and Respondent, having been determined since 20th May 2022, the Respondent has no right to remain on the property of the applicant. The respondent has become a trespasser since that day”
The plaintiff’s counsel,pointed out that the affidavit in support of the respondents’ application clearly disclosed that there was a contractual dispute between the respondents, and the appellant, as to the control and possession of the land, which is the subject matter of the respondent’s application before the trial court.
Sebanjo stressed that the resolution of the contractual dispute, between the respondents and the appellant cannot be determined as done by the trial judge under the enforcement of fundamental human rights.
“ The learned trail Judge erred in law, and acted in excess of his jurisdiction when he assumed jurisdiction and delivered judgment in favour of the respondent for alleged breaches of his fundamental human rights when the alleged breaches of fundamental rights complained of by the respondent are ancillary to the substantive claim of contractual relationship between the respondent, and the appellant. The judgment is against the weight of evidence” Mr Sobanjo stressed.
He further prayed that the Court of Appeal should uphold his appeal and set aside the decision of the trial court dated October 19, 2022 delivered in suit HOS/M.209/2022.