IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON JUSTICE A.N UBAKA

 

DATED 24^th MARCH 2026                                                        Suit No: NICN/LA/213/2022

 

BETWEEN

 

1. DR.  BOLANLE AWOYEMI  
2. OLANRENWAJU AJAYI                   ……………     CLAIMANTS 
3. PHARM GLORIA UKWUOMA       

 

AND 

 

NIGERIAN RAILWAYS CORPORATION ………     DEFENDANT 

 

REPRESENTATION:

B. A Onuoha for the Claimants 

Roseline Dikeocha for the Defendant

 

JUDGMENT

 

By a general form of complaint filed on the 27^th May, 2022 the claimants in paragraph 27 of the statement of fact claimed the following reliefs against the defendant:

 

 

            

            

iii.       3^rd Claimant; Pharm. Gloria Ukwuoma; at Quarter No. 81, Awolowo Road, Railway Compound, Ebute Metta. 

 

 

i.          1^st Claimant, Dr. Bolanle Awoyomi; at Quarter No. 28A/2, Njoku Road, Railway compound Ebute Metta; 

 

ii.         2^nd Claimant Dr. Olanrewaju Ajayi; at Quarter No. 98, George Ayo Crescent, Railway Compound, Ebute Metta; 

 

 

 

            

ii.         2^nd Claimant, Dr. Olanrewaju Ajayi; at Quarter No. 98, George Ayo 

Crescent, Railway Compound, Ebute Metta; 

            

iii.       3^rd Claimant; Pharm. Gloria Ukwuoma; at Quarter No. 81, Awolowo 

Road, Railway Compound, Ebute Metta. 

 

 

 

Metta, Lagos; 

            

iii.       at Quarter No. 81, Awolowo Road, Railway Compound, Ebute Metta, Lagos; 

 

to any other person without first giving the Claimant the right of first refusal as contained in paragraph 12 of the Approved Guidelines for the Sale of Federal Government Property. 

 

 

The facts of the case are pleaded in paragraphs 1-27 of the statement of fact with witnesses written statements on oath (dated 27^th January, 2025), list of witnesses, documents to be relied upon on trial dated and filed 22^nd May 2022.

 

The defendant filed its statement of defense in paragraphs 1-39, with witness written statement on oath and documents to be relied upon at trial dated 14^th June, 2022 but filed 15^th June 2022. 

 

The claimants testified in respect of their case. The summary of the facts pleaded by the 1^st claimant, Dr Bolanle Awoyomi is that at all times material to these proceedings he is a member of staff of the Federal Government of Nigeria Public Service by virtue of his unbroken employment first, by the Nigerian Railway Corporation (NRC) and subsequently, by his redeployment to the Federal Medical Centre, Ebute-­Metta, Lagos where he still work till date; that he has always resided and he continue to reside with his family at Quarter No. 28A/2, Njoku Road, Railway compound Ebute Metta which is the official quarters allocated to him by virtue of his employment; that he was employed by virtue of a letter dated 8^th May 2001 and allocated the above-mentioned quarters; that he was employed by the Nigerian Railways Corporation as a Consultant Orthopedic Surgeon and his employment was confirmed by a letter dated 1^st September 2004. That upon allocation of the premises to him, he took possession of same and have been in occupation ever since and that the rents for the occupation of the premises were being deducted from his salaries initially by the Defendant and subsequently by the Federal Medical Centre because he was told that the rents deducted are usually remitted to the Defendant herein; that sometime in June 2004, the hospital of the Defendant where he was working was taken over by the Federal Ministry of Health and it became known as the Federal Medical Centre and he continued his services with the hospital now known as the Federal Medical Centre after he was seconded there; that the continuation of his services with the Federal Medical Centre did not affect the occupation of the premises he was allotted to and have been occupying since both the Federal Ministry of Health and the Nigerian Railways Corporation, the Defendant herein, are all agents of the Federal Government. 

 

That the Federal Government of Nigeria on or around the 20^th of June 2005 issued and published the Approved Guidelines For the sale of Federal Government Property which was published in the Daily Champion Newspaper of Monday 20^th of June 2005, as well as Generic Guidelines for the Reforms of Parastatals issued by the Bureau of Public Enterprise published by the Presidency in March 2006; that by virtue of the guidelines, he is entitled to be given the right of the first refusal as part of his monetized fringe benefits by virtue of his employment in the Federal Civil Service of the Federation, the Defendant, being a Federal Government Agency, as well as the continuation of his employment with the Federal Medical Centre which is also a Federal Government agency; that he was to be given the option of acquiring the premises which he occupied and still occupy having come into occupation of same in the course of his various employments; that the Defendant was the 1^st defendant in Suit No. NIC/LA/11/2011 in which judgment the court held inter alia that: 

 

 

 

 

That he is covered by the terms of this judgment as he was a legal sitting tenant on the premises he occupied and still occupy at the time of the judgment and which premises he still occupy till date; that the judgment has been followed and adopted in NICN/LA/447/2017. That by a letter written to the Defendant by the solicitors of the Claimant in the above Suit No. NIC/LA/11/2011 and dated the 14^th of March, 2016, the Defendant was informed that he is among those entitled to take benefits of the judgment and that in spite of the facts and having been waiting all along for the Defendant to do as directed by the Court and comply with the terms and directives of the judgment in Suit No. NIC/LA/11/2011, the Defendant has been threatening to eject him from his premises in total disregard and disobedience of the judgment of the honourable court even when notices of eviction has not been formally issued to him; that he fear that he will be forcefully ejected by the Defendant if no urgent steps are taken to protect his occupation of the premises wherein he live and his rights over same; that this threat is on-going and continuous and has continued till date as the Defendant has continued to threaten that public servant like him would be evicted; that another colleague of his who had retired from the Federal Public Service, who was employed by the Defendant and seconded to the Federal Medical Centre inside the premises of the Defendant, had to approach the Honourable Court for the protection of her rights over the premises she occupies and the Honourable Court gave judgment in her favour in Suit. No. NICN/LA/447/2017; that he has served the mandatory pre-action notice on the Defendant by virtue of a letter dated February 21, 2022; that he does not have any other house to move to with his family if ejected from the premises unless restrained by the honourable court; that the Defendant by virtue of ejection of persons forcefully from their premises, has shown itself to be persons who has no respect for the rule of law and due process and has refused to present a valuation of the houses to enable him present a bid for the one he occupy. 

 

Under cross examination by the defendant’s counsel, CW1 confirmed that some of his colleagues were given notice to quit; that he is in court to avoid embarrassment from the defendant and moreover he is on his pre-retirement leave.   

 

There was no Re-Examination by the 1^st claimants’ counsel. The 1^st claimant was discharged

 

The summary of the facts pleaded by the 2^nd claimant, Dr Olanrewaju Ajayi is that all times material to this proceedings, she is a member of staff of the Federal Government of Nigeria Public Service by virtue of her unbroken employment first, by the Nigerian Railway Corporation (NRC) and subsequently, by her redeployment to the Federal Medical Centre, Ebute-Metta, Lagos where she still works till date; that she is a Medical Doctor and has always resided and she continue to reside with her family at Quarter No. 98, George Ayo Crescent, Railway Compound, Ebute Metta Lagos which is the official quarters allocated to her by virtue of her employment via a letter dated the 21^st of September 1998 and allocated the above­mentioned quarters; that she was employed by the Nigerian Railways Corporation, as a Senor Registrar and that her engagement was with the hospital of the Defendant situated inside the compound of the Defendant at its headquarters in Ebute Metta, Lagos; that her employment was subsequently confirmed by a letter dated 27^th of December 2000. That upon allocation of the premises to her, she took possession of same and has been in occupation ever since and that the rents for the occupation of the premises were being deducted from her salaries initially by the Defendant and subsequently by the Federal Medical Centre. 

 

That sometime in June 2004, the hospital of the Defendant where she was working was taken over by the Federal Ministry of Health and it became known as the Federal Medical Centre and she continued her services with the hospital now known as the Federal Medical Centre after she was seconded there; that the continuation of her services with the Federal Medical Centre did not affect the occupation of the premises she was allotted to and has been occupying; that the Federal Government of Nigeria on or around the 20^th of June 2005 issued and published the Approved Guidelines For the sale of Federal Government Property which was published in the Daily Champion Newspaper of Monday 20^th of June 2005, as well as Generic Guidelines for the Reforms of Parastatals issued by the Bureau of Public Enterprise published by the Presidency in March 2006; that by virtue of the guidelines, she is entitled to be given the right of the first refusal as part of his monetized fringe benefits by virtue of his employment in the Federal Civil Service of the Federation, the Defendant, being a Federal Government Agency, as well as the continuation of her employment with the Federal Medical Centre which is also a Federal Government agency; that she was to be given the option of acquiring the premises which she occupied and still occupy having come into occupation of same in the course of her various employments; that the Defendant was the 1^st defendant in Suit No. NIC/LA/11/2011 in which judgment the court held inter alia that: 

 

 

 

 

That he is covered by the terms of this judgment as he was a legal sitting tenant on the premises he occupied and still occupy at the time of the judgment and which premises he still occupy till date; that the judgment has been followed and adopted in NICN/LA/447/2017. That by a letter written to the Defendant by the solicitors of the Claimant in the above Suit No. NIC/LA/11/2011 and dated the 14^th of March, 2016, the Defendant was informed that he is among those entitled to take benefits of the judgment and that in spite of the facts and having been waiting all along for the Defendant to do as directed by the Court and comply with the terms and directives of the judgment in Suit No. NIC/LA/11/2011, the Defendant has been threatening to eject him from his premises in total disregard and disobedience of the judgment of the honourable court even when notices of eviction has not been formally issued to him; that he fear that he will be forcefully ejected by the Defendant if no urgent steps are taken to protect his occupation of the premises wherein he live and his rights over same; that this threat is on-going and continuous and has continued till date as the Defendant has continued to threaten that public servant like him would be evicted; that another colleague of her, Dr Rosemary Okwudiafor had received notices of ejection from the defendant and this notice has made her fear that she stand the risk of being evicted; that another colleague of hers who had retired from the Federal Public Service, who was employed by the Defendant and seconded to the Federal Medical Centre inside the premises of the Defendant, had to approach the honourable court for the protection of her rights over the premises she occupies and the honourable court gave judgment in her favour in Suit. No. NICN/LA/447/2017; that she has served the mandatory pre-action notice on the Defendant by virtue of a letter dated February 21, 2022; that she does not have any other house to move to with his family if ejected from the premises unless restrained by the honourable court; that the Defendant by virtue of ejection of persons forcefully from their premises, has shown itself to be persons who has no respect for the rule of law and due process and has refused to present a valuation of the houses to enable her present a bid for the one she occupy. 

 

Under cross examination by the defendant’s counsel, CW2 confirmed that she was employed in October 1998 and that she is still in service.

 

There was no Re-Examination by the claimants’ counsel. The 2^nd claimant was discharged.

 

The summary of the facts pleaded by the 3^rd claimant, Gloria Ukwuoma is that all times material to this proceedings, she is a member of staff of the Federal Government of Nigeria Public Service by virtue of her unbroken employment first, by the Nigerian Railway Corporation (NRC) and subsequently, by her redeployment to the Federal Medical Centre, Ebute-Metta, Lagos where she still works till date; that she is a pharmacist and has always resided and she continue to reside with her family at Quarter No. 81, Awolowo Road, Railway Compound, Ebute Metta Lagos which is the official quarters allocated to her by virtue of her employment via a letter dated the 9^th of September 1987 and allocated the above­mentioned quarters and that she was employed as Gloria Onu which was her maiden name; that she was employed by the Nigerian Railways Corporation, as a Senor Registrar and that her engagement was with the hospital of the Defendant situated inside the compound of the Defendant at its headquarters in Ebute Metta, Lagos; that her employment was subsequently confirmed by a letter dated 27^th of November 1989. That upon allocation of the premises to her, she took possession of same and has been in occupation ever since and that the rents for the occupation of the premises were being deducted from her salaries initially by the Defendant and subsequently by the Federal Medical Centre. 

 

That sometime in June 2004, the hospital of the Defendant where she was working was taken over by the Federal Ministry of Health and it became known as the Federal Medical Centre and she continued her services with the hospital now known as the Federal Medical Centre after she was seconded there; that the continuation of her services with the Federal Medical Centre did not affect the occupation of the premises she was allotted to and has been occupying; that the Federal Government of Nigeria on or around the 20^th of June 2005 issued and published the Approved Guidelines For the sale of Federal Government Property which was published in the Daily Champion Newspaper of Monday 20^th of June 2005, as well as Generic Guidelines for the Reforms of Parastatals issued by the Bureau of Public Enterprise published by the Presidency in March 2006; that by virtue of the guidelines, she is entitled to be given the right of the first refusal as part of his monetized fringe benefits by virtue of his employment in the Federal Civil Service of the Federation, the Defendant, being a Federal Government Agency, as well as the continuation of her employment with the Federal Medical Centre which is also a Federal Government agency; that she was to be given the option of acquiring the premises which she occupied and still occupy having come into occupation of same in the course of her various employments; that the Defendant was the 1^st defendant in Suit No. NIC/LA/11/2011 in which judgment the court held inter alia that: 

 

 

 

 

That he is covered by the terms of this judgment as he was a legal sitting tenant on the premises he occupied and still occupy at the time of the judgment and which premises he still occupy till date; that the judgment has been followed and adopted in NICN/LA/447/2017. That by a letter written to the Defendant by the solicitors of the Claimant in the above Suit No. NIC/LA/11/2011 and dated the 14^th of March, 2016, the Defendant was informed that he is among those entitled to take benefits of the judgment and that in spite of the facts and having been waiting all along for the Defendant to do as directed by the Court and comply with the terms and directives of the judgment in Suit No. NIC/LA/11/2011, the Defendant has been threatening to eject him from his premises in total disregard and disobedience of the judgment of the honourable court even when notices of eviction has not been formally issued to him; that he fear that he will be forcefully ejected by the Defendant if no urgent steps are taken to protect his occupation of the premises wherein he live and his rights over same; that this threat is on-going and continuous and has continued till date as the Defendant has continued to threaten that public servant like him would be evicted; that another colleague of her, Dr Rosemary Okwudiafor had received notices of ejection from the defendant and this notice has made her fear that she stand the risk of being evicted; that another colleague of hers who had retired from the Federal Public Service, who was employed by the Defendant and seconded to the Federal Medical Centre inside the premises of the Defendant, had to approach the Honourable Court for the protection of her rights over the premises she occupies and the Honourable Court gave judgment in her favour in Suit. No. NICN/LA/447/2017; that she has served the mandatory pre-action notice on the Defendant by virtue of a letter dated February 21, 2022; that she does not have any other house to move to with his family if ejected from the premises unless restrained by the honourable court; that the Defendant by virtue of ejection of persons forcefully from their premises, has shown itself to be persons who has no respect for the rule of law and due process and has refused to present a valuation of the houses to enable her present a bid for the one she occupy. 

 

Under cross examination by the defendant’s counsel, CW3 stated that she is no more in service of the defendant as she retired on 1^st October, 2022; that the monetization policy was introduced in year 2005.

 

There was no Re-Examination by the claimants’ counsel. The claimants thereafter closed their case. 

The defendant opened its defence by calling its sole witness, Mr. Adisa Taofeek Akindipe, the Chief of Administration in the employment of the defendant, wherein he adopted his witness statement on oath as evidence in this case. The defendant’s witness statement on oath is that he knows the Claimants in this suit as former staff of the Defendant, who later transferred their services to the Federal Medical Center from where they retire and that the Claimants were only members of staff of the Defendant up to 2004 and while they were in the Employment of the Defendant, they were allotted official quarters by virtue of that employment; that the Claimants still resides in the respective quarters allocated to them by virtue of their employment with the Defendant till date; that the claimants were transferred to the Federal Medical Center in 2004 when the medical department of the Defendant was taken over by the Federal Medical center which is a distinct and separate body from the Defendant, being that the Defendant is under the Federal Ministry of Transportation, whilst the Federal Medical Center is under the Federal Ministry of Health. That after the transfer of the Claimants and some other staff of the Defendant to the FMC and, in order to ease their accommodation issues, an agreement was entered into between the Defendant and management of the FMC to the effect that the staff of the FMC be allowed to stay in the defendant’s staff quarters, as tenants; that  the FMC has been paying the rent on behalf of its staff, through the Railway Property Company Limited, who is in charge of the Defendant’s property as can be seen from the letter dated 10^th September 2008.  

 

That while it is true that the federal Government published Approved guide lines for the sale or lease of Federal Government properties and the Generic guide lines, it is not true that these guidelines are the monetization policy; that the right of first refusal contained in the Approved guide lines for the sale or lease of Federal Government properties was not given to the Claimants as part of their monetized fringe benefit but as a normal/usual benefit which the owner of a property accords his tenant when he puts up the property for sale and that this right may be incorporated in a written agreement or may just be enjoyed as a usual practice; that if the right of first refusal was given as part of fringe benefit, the government would not have offered the property to the public and require the legal occupant to purchase at the price of the highest bidder, knowing that the public servant will not have competitive edge; that in order to ensure the effective implementation of the policy, the Presidential Committee on the monetization of fringe benefits in the Public Service of the Federation was set up by President Obasanjo on November 11, 2002 under the chairmanship of the then secretary to the government of the Federation, Chief Ufott Ekete. Thereafter a Circular detailing the newly monetized fringe benefit and the modalities for their implementation was issued on 27^th June, 2003 to take effect on 1^st July, 2003.

 

Thus, it is not the Approved guide lines for the sale of Federal Government properties and the Generic guide lines that are the monetization policy; that the monetization policy took effect in 2003 and not 2005 as stated by the Claimants in their erroneous believe that the guideline for the sale or lease of Federal Government properties published in 2005, and the Generic guide lines published in 2006 were the monetization policy; that the monetization policy and the policy on sale of Federal government properties, though related, are two separate policies of the President Obasanjo’s regime. The monetization policy was introduced via the “Certain Political Public and Judicial Office Holders (Salary and Allowances etc.) Act of 2002. The move to identify and sell Federal government properties (which are abandoned or which do not form the core of its activities) all over the Federation has been on since 2001 as can be gleaned from the Letter from the Presidency dated 2001; that from his knowledge of the Federal Government policies, he believed that the Claimants are mixing up the monetization policy which became implementable in July 2003 with the guideline for sale of Federal government Landed Property published in 2005 as part of the reform of the president Obasanjo led federal government; that the sale was necessitated by government decision to divest itself of interest in properties which do not form the core of its activities. 

 

That monetization is the quantification in money terms of those physical fringe benefits which government used to provide for its workers as part of their condition of service prior to 2003; that such fringe benefits include residential accommodation, chauffeur–driven cars, Furniture, Utility services etc. and that these fringe benefits became transmuted into cash which the defendant paid to them as increased allowance through their monthly salaries, thus the Defendant fully implemented all aspects of the monetization policy; that the implication of monetization was that the employees became responsible to provide for themselves, all those benefits that have become monetized. Thus, they will buy their cars employ their drivers, rent or buy their own houses etc.  Hence the Claimants and other staff were made to start paying economic rent with respect to the quarters allocated to them as physical fringe benefit before monetization; that for example, the Defendant sold its official cars, because these became surplus upon their being monetized. These were cars given out as official cars prior monetization; that with the monetization of car benefit, by way of cash as car allowance and car loans, official cars were withdrawn and sold to employees or the public; that the Defendant also withdrew rights to official quarters and commenced collection of economic rent, because the occupants enjoy monetized housing benefit and that due to the special nature of its activity, the Defendant prefers its employees to stay in official quarters and pay rent to it; that the claimant were qualified to be given the option of first refusal if the Defendant had offered the property for sale, but the Defendant did not; that there never was a time when the public bided, only when that happens, will the clamant be given right of first refusal to purchase at the price of the highest bidder as stipulated in the guideline.  

 

That the judgment in suit No. NICN/LA/11/2011 was an affirmation of the Approved guideline for sale of federal government Landed Property; that the claimant is misconstruing the judgment in suit No. NICN/LA/11/2011 as the issuance of bidding forms ordered by the court was with reference to the guidelines upheld by the court and that the court could not have gone outside the provisions of the guideline which regulates bidding forms and bidding; that from reading the guideline that bidding forms are available as specified in the guideline, and when any property of the Federal government is advertised for sale, the general public which includes the Claimant can obtain bidding forms and bid, the biding of the general public must precede the exercise of the right of first refusal of the legal occupant who must then purchase at the price of the highest bidder; that the claimant has no special interest and therefore, no locus standing to compel the Defendant to issue this form as bidding forms are of a general interest and not personal to public servant who are sitting tenants; that not even the general public can compel the Defendant to issue bidding forms but can only respond whenever the presidential implementation committee of the white paper on the commission of inquiry into the alienation of Federal government landed properties, which has the responsibility to sell, advertises and calls for bid. Also, none of the reform policies of the Federal government compels any parastatal or agency to sell; that by his understanding, the Claimants are covered by the terms of the judgment in suit No. NICN/LA/11/2011 and that the right of first refusal is that, it can only be invoked in the process of sale and upon the existence of other purchasers against whom the Claimant takes priority, and there is no such a tripartite scenario here. Accordingly, their counsel informs them and he verily believe him that no cause of action has arisen.

 

That the parties in the suits being relied on by the Claimants, misguided and misdirected the court on the monetization policy, and the essence and application of the Approved guidelines on sale of Federal government landed properties and that those judgments are only of persuasive effect. And in fact, the Defendant has appealed against these judgments; that there is nothing in the judgment in suit No. NICN/LA/11/2011 to be complied with, disregarded given effect to, except if there has been a sale or offer for sale of the properties in question, as the guideline which the judgment confirms, governs or regulates sales only; that it is only when the Federal Government lists properties for sale that the presidential implementation committee moves to sell; that after 2005 when 700 properties where listed for sale in Lagos, the government has not listed more and the Defendant’s quarters were not listed. That he saw from certain publications that the federal government also made allowance for establishments who want to be exempted from sale to indicate so that Government will not earmark their properties and send to the Presidential committee for sale; that the Defendant are entitled to quit the Claimants and others, if by the time they retire from service their quarters have not been listed for sale; that parties to lease agreement do sometimes insert the right of first refusal to purchase in their lease Agreement and the Tenants (Claimants) at the expiration of their tenancy cannot insist that the Landlord should not quit them until they exercise that right, or compel the landlord to sell or call for buyers so that they can exercise that right; that the Defendant has never evicted any tenant forcefully as the Claimants are seeking to attract cheap sympathy from the honourable court and bias the mind of the honourable court against the Defendant; that the Defendant did not issue any quit notice in disregard of the Judgment of this court in Suit No.  NIC/CA/11/2011 or pursuant to any sale. Rather the Defendant issued the quit notice pursuant to its need of the accommodation for its staff, its need to earn rent and its need to comply with circulars No. HOSF/LLO/SQ/2251 dated 15^th April, 2004 which directed that retired civil servant should no longer be allowed to retain the quarters they occupied while in service. 

 

That that the claimants have no cause of action against the Defendant as no residential quarter of the Defendant has been selected for sale as to deny them right of first refusal and even if there is a cause of action, any cause of action the Claimants may have has become statute bared as it should have been instituted in 2005 when according to the claimants their right of first refusal was published or in 2015 when this right was affirmed by the court; that the Claimant failed to institute this action while they were still “public servants” with the right of first refusal, and chose to institute it after retirement when they are no longer “public servants” as envisaged by the guideline and cannot show evidence of rent payment – a condition precedent in the guideline they so heavily rely on. Thus, he believed that their right if any has already abated; that the Claimants have no locus standi to institute this action as the guidelines on sale of federal government landed property, upon which the action is based is made primarily to regulate sales of those properties to the general but the claimants are now making it look like the guide line is primarily for public servants and even calls it the monetization policy itself; that the Defendant's residential quarters are meant for staff who are still in the Defendant's employment, in order to ease their accommodation stress and enhance their performance and that the presence of the Claimants who are retired staff, in the property is denying other staff of the Defendant of their benefit of residing close to their work place. That it will be in the best interest of justice for the honourable court to dismiss the Claimant’s action as being speculative, frivolous, vexatious, and lacking in merit.

 

Under cross examination by the claimants’ counsel, DW stated that he is not aware whether bidding forms has been issued to the claimants; that no valuation as the defendant’s house is not part of the ones to be sold. That on the defendant’s new staff, it depends on the availability of quarters as it is not part of their employment and that there must be a request for that; that paragraph 2b of exhibit D7 is not in isolation but to be read with paragraph 3, it is for core ministries not for parastatals.  

 

There was no re-examination by the defendant’s counsel. The defendant thereafter closed its case.

 

The parties were directed to file their final written addresses. The defendant’s final written address is dated 11^th February 2025 but filed 13^th February, 2025 while the claimant’s final written address is dated and filed 18^th March, 2025. The defendant/counterclaimant’s Reply on point of law is dated and filed 24^th March, 2025.

 

Learned counsel on behalf of the defendant formulated five (5) issues for the court’s determination viz:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It’s the defendant’s counsel submission on issue one (1) that in the case of the Claimant herein, the right of first refusal is not a contract or law, it is a privilege contained in a guideline for the implementation of a government policy and that it is for the government to deal with the committee if the committee fails to follow the guideline; that a cause of action will only arise if the Claimant pleads and proves that their residence were bided for and sold or about to be sold to a 3^rd party without first offering the Claimants who have bided the right of first refusal to purchase at the price of the highest bidder; that neither have the Claimants established that the guideline is mandatory or compelling in the sense that it mandatorily imposes on the Defendant, the obligation to sell their premises so that the claimant can exercise the right of first refusal; that the guideline is not a law and has not the force of law as the sale of Federal Government’s property was a policy designed to divest the government of some properties that did not form the core of its activities; that the guideline was made to guide this sale and not a law that creates an obligation to sell so that the occupants can exercise right of first refusal.

 

That assuming without conceding that there is an obligation to sell, then the Claimants lack the locus standi, to sue to enforce it because the guideline was not applicable only to them but to the general public and that the claimants have to show that they were affected over and above the general public by the failure of refusal to sell.

 

On issue two (2); counsel submitted that injunction is granted to protect a threatened right; that the claimants’ right have not arisen nor matured and therefore does not exist and cannot be threatened; that the right of first refusal presupposes that there is a third party desirous of buying the property, so that as between the 3^rd party and the claimants, the claimants has a right to be given the first opportunity to buy or refuse to buy but the claimants have not shown this to be the case here neither did they show the honourable court that they are entitled to remain in the defendant’s property until such a time that the defendant decides to sell it; that the honourable court do not deal with speculative and academic issues but live and factual issues before it. He cited the case of Doma v INEC (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1317) 297 and urged the honourable court to so hold.  

 

On issue three (3); counsel submitted that declaratory relief cannot be granted where the claimants have not shown that any of their right has been breached or infringed and that to obtain the relief declaration the claimants must establish that: 

 

 

(ii)        The defendant must be a person denying or interested in denying the claimants’ title to such legal character or right.

 

 

That Declarations sought by the Claimants must fail as that there is no basis for it and having not shown that their coverage by the guideline is disputed and therefore in issue.

 

On issue four (4); counsel submitted that the parties in suit No NICN/LA/11/2011 are Union of the Defendant workers and the Defendant and not the Claimants nor their union; that the claimants did not give any evidence that they are part of the union of the Defendant’s workers and that just because the Claimants are legal sitting tenants does not entitle them to take benefit of a judgment, otherwise every other legal sitting tenants will take benefit of same. After all the right of first refusal is given to legal sitting tenants generally and not only to public servants; that it is trite law that judgment is binding only on parties to the action and their privies. That the claimants cannot use fresh action to enforce a judgment when the judgment enforcement rules made under the Sheriff and civil process Act provides a number of ways to enforce judgment as this will amount to re-litigating issues which have already been decided by a court of competent jurisdiction with regards to the parties and their privies. He cited the case of S.O. Ntuks and 9 others vs Nigerian Ports Authority (2007) NWLR. Pt 1051, 392 at 417 and urged the honourable court to so hold. 

 

Continuing, counsel submitted that even if the claimants are persons covered by the judgment in Suit No NICN/LA/11/2011, which is denied, then they are also part to the Appeal in respect thereof as the Defendant in that suit has since 2016 appealed against the judgment of the lower court in Appeal No. CA/L/750/16 Between Nigerian Railway Corporation vs Nigerian Union of Railway Workers and that the Claimants instituted the instant suit in May 2022, while the appeal is still pending and in disregard of same appeal; that the honourable court has no jurisdiction to make any pronouncement on a matter that is on appeal. He cited the case of Ikpeazu vs Oga & Ors. (2016) LPELR - 440845 CA. 

 

On issue five (5); counsel submitted that the claimants are not entitled to bring this action against the Defendant as the Defendant owes them no obligations and that any claim or grievance against the Defendant with respect to the property occupied by the Claimants should have been channeled through their employer to whom the defendant is obliged by virtue of the agreement between the two agencies.   

 

Learned counsel on behalf of the claimant framed a sole issue for the court’s determination viz:

 

Whether the claimants have satisfied the requirements of the law to be entitled to the reliefs claimed.

 

It is the claimant’s counsel submission on the sole issue that assuming without conceding that the Claimants' occupation of the premises ceased with the transfer of their services to the Federal Medical Center, having not protested the continued stay of the Claimants on the premises, coupled with the collection of rents meant that the Defendant had waived its rights to complain; that the Claimants have proved their entitlement to live in the premises, the subject matters of this suit, having moved into same by virtue of their employment with the Defendant and that by virtue of the Claimants being public servants in the public service of the federation, having started working for the Defendant and then, the Federal Medical Centre, all the while living at the premises they occupy without any interference of protest by the Defendant, goes to show that the Claimants are entitled to live therein and take benefit of the policy detailing the sales of the Federal Government houses via exhibits BA4, OA4 and GU4 respectively. 

 

That the judgment has neither been set aside nor has it been upturned on appeal and that the claimants are not urging the honourable court to interpret the judgement as erroneously claimed by the Defendant as there is nothing to interpret in the judgment; that the judgment is on appeal does not place a bar or restriction on its applicability and that it until the appellate court pronounces otherwise on it, the judgment remains the applicable law on the issues it decided; that the claimant’s relief merely seeks to align the entitlement of the claimant in line with the said judgment which has given judicial assent to the policy of sales of the Federal government houses as contained in exhibit BA4, OA4 and GU4. That the honourable court is bound to follow that decision as constituted in NIC/LA/11/2011 which serves the dual purpose of being an exhibit of what has been done by the Court with regard to the policy and also a persuasive authority on the honourable court.

 

On reply on point of law; the defendant’s counsel submitted that the claimants’ counsel argument on claimants being sitting tenants and rents paid goes to no issue and that it can lead to conclusion and potentially confuse the honourable court’s understanding of the actual issues in dispute between the parties. He cited the case of Tijani Jolasun vs Napoleon Bangboye (2010)18 NWLR pt. 1225 285 and urged the honourable court to so hold. 

 

I have considered the processes filed, the evidence of the parties, written submissions and authorities cited. In my considered opinion, the issue for determination is:

 

Whether on the pleadings and evidence, the claimants are entitled to the reliefs claimed.   

 

The defendant in paragraph 4.10 raised the issue that the cause of action has not accrued so the claimants cannot institute the action; that the action will only arise if the claimants have evidence that their residence was put up for bid or sold or about to be sold to a 3^rd party without first offering it to the claimants. That assuming without conceding that where there is obligation to sell, then the claimants lack locus standi as the guideline is applicable to the general public, so there is no cause of action as the right of first refusal has not arisen. The pertinent question is when did the claimants cause of action accrue?  On what is the cause of action, Courts have defined same to mean a cause of complaint, a civil right or obligation for determination by court of law.

 

The case of the claimants is that they were employed by the defendant and quarters allocated to them. That by the Federal Government policy guideline, they are entitled to buy the quarters allocated to them and has the choice of first refusal before they can be offered to other prospective tenants. The defendant disagrees with their postulation as this issue of the Federal Government policy had been decided by the court and the defendant appealed the decision of the court. The defendant appealed and matter is pending before the court of appeal. The claimants have stated that they have not been served with quit notice to leave the property they occupy. The property has equally not been offered by the defendant or to any other person. These two components of the term cause of action are the wrong action of the defendant and the consequent damage which gives the plaintiff his cause of complaint. See Jumbo & Ors v Jumbo & Ors (2010) LPELR -8673(CA). There are instances where the cause of action does not arise from a completed act and the issue of continuing injury comes in. See INEC v Ogbadigbo Local Govt & Ors (2015) LPELR -24839 SC where the court stated that ‘’the continuance of the damage or injury constitutes an exception to the general rule. it was held in Obiefuna v Okoye (1961) ALL NLR 357 @ 360 that ‘’ continuance of injury or damage means continuance of the legal injury and not merely continuance of the injurious effects of a legal injury. See also Olasebikan v Williams (,1999) 5 NWLR (pt 449 )437 @ 456 -457 D-H. Based on the foregoing, the objection on the issue of cause of action raised by the defendant in their final address in paragraph 4.10 fails and is dismissed. 

 

From the above-mentioned facts, it is my view that the following facts are not in dispute:

 

 

 

Based on the above undisputed facts, the first issue I need to resolve is whether the claimants are persons covered by the approved guidelines for the sale of Federal Government property published in the daily champion.  There is nothing before the court to show that the defendant complied with Article 4 of exhibit BA4 so that the claimants can bid for the property while clause 6 states 

 

Each bidder must submit completed bidding forms along with the following documents and failure to do so shall result in disqualification

1. bank draft /certified cheque equal to a non-refundable bidding fee of 10,000
2. bank draft / cheque equal to bid value certified 
3. Tax clearance 

 

These are some of the guidelines which the defendant did not even commence, in addition to the fact that the claimants were not given the value of the property hence the pre-condition for the bid could not be achieves as they did not know value of the property.  While the claimants were desirous of keying into the guide line the defendant did not provide the claimants with the necessary stipulation by the authority.  The defendant did not comply with the decision of this court in NICN/ LA/ 11/ 2011. The defendant in its final address in paragraph 4. 26 submit ‘’ The claimants have sought for a declaration that they are persons covered by the approved guidelines for the lease of Federal government landed property as well as the generic guidelines for the reform of parastatals, however, it is not in dispute that the claimants were covered by the approved guidelines. 

 

This clearly shows that the defendant is aware that the claimants are covered by such. The defendant further submit in paragraph 4.34 of the final address that the parties in NICN/ LA/ 11/ 2011 are union of the defendant workers and the defendant and not the claimants or their union.  I align myself with the decision of this court in NICN/ LA/ 11/2011 and NICN/LA/447/2017 in that the defendant’s refusal to implement the policy which is not meant for the claimants alone but for all sitting tenants as same is admitted in paragraph 10 and 11 of the statement of defense “The defendant admits paragraph 11 and 13 of the statement of facts.  Paragraph 13 ‘’ further to the foregoing and by the tenor of the said guidelines averred the claimants were to be given the option of acquiring the premises which they occupied and still occupy having come into occupation of same in the course of their various employments’’ The defendant t admitted the facts and this led to the institution this suit as they have the right of first refusal. The admission is reinforced by exhibit BA4.  DW under cross examination to the question ‘’ in your paragraph 21 and 22 particularly you made reference to the judgment in suit NICN /LA/2011 where you stated it is an affirmation that it is a guideline for sale of Federal Government landed property and he answered yes.

 

From the above, my holding is that the defendant having admitted and confirmed the guideline for the sale of Federal Government houses cannot turn around with the argument that it is contrary in the case. What is more the decision of this court in NICN/LA/11/2011 is pending before the Court of Appeal and since it has not been overruled, is binding on the defendant. This therefore lends credence to the court’s earlier holding that this is a continuing injury as the refusal to access the value of the house to enable the claimant raise 10% for biding constitutes same.  

 

The first relief is for a declaration that the claimants are persons covered by the Approved Guidelines for the Sale of Federal Government Property which was published in the Daily Champion Newspaper of Monday 20^th of June, 2005, as well as Generic Guidelines for the Reforms of Parastatals issued by the Bureau of Public Enterprises published by the Presidency in March, 2006, with regard to the premises occupied by the claimants viz: 

 

            

            

 

Reliefs 1 and 2 are declaratory reliefs.  In Dangote Flour Mills Pls v Samagada Industries Limited (2009) LPELR -480849CA) defined it as a relief by which the plaintiff prays the court in the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction to pronounce or declare an existing state of affairs in law in his favour as may be discernable from the averments in the statement of claim. See Akande v Adisa (2012) 15 NWLR (Pt 1324) 538, 571. The main purpose of a declaratory relief is essentially an equitable relief, in which the claimant prays the court to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to pronounce an existing state of affairs. See Kuburi Vintl Trading Co Ltd &Anor v Musti & Anor 2018 LPELR -44004 (CA). The general principle of law is that a party that asserts and alleges must prove his assertion or allegation and by law, the burden is always on the claimant, who files a suit to lead credible evidence to establish his claim and in doing so must rely on the strength of his own case, not on the weakness of the case of the defendant (if any).  See the case of Hayder Trading Manufacturing Ltd & Anor v Tropical Commercial Bank (2013) LPELR-20294 (CA), Okoye & Ors v Nwamankwu (2014) LPELR 23172 (SC).   See Jaji & Ors v Olowora & Anor (2015) LPELR -25575 (CA).

 

From the entire pleadings of the claimants, what they submit in  Paragraphs 6.4.6 and 6.4.7 that being legal sitting tenants are qualified to bring this action and conceded that the suit constituted as suit NO NICN/LA/11/2111 which is exhibit BA6 was brought by members of the union of the defendant, however with the prouncement of the court which has given judicial assent to the policy on the sale of Federal Government houses is to the effect that it is applicable to members of that union who are sitting legal tenants and as consequence the claimants brought the present action, since it is not in doubt that the claimants are tenants  of the defendant paying their rents, the prayer is to align the entitlement of the claimants with the said judgment which in turn gives judicial assent to the sale of federal Government  houses. The judgment has not been set aside nor has it been upturned on appeal. The other question is did the claimants meet the criteria as shown in exhibit BA4? One of the criteria is that if the legal siting tenant fails to accept the offer within 14 days, then the offer will be communicated to the highest bidder and in paragraph 13 of exhibit BA4 they had the right of first refusal they qualify by the said criteria as at June 2005, the claimants were sitting legal tenants. See paragraph 3 of the amended statement of facts.  On the fact that some of the claimants are about to retire does not remove the fact that they are entitled to and benefit from the sale. The claimants at all times material to this suit are public servants and they are entitled to buy the quarters having been employed as public servant. The clause was not specific on who is entitled to buy as it referred to the fact that the employee must be a legal occupant. exhibit BA 3 is the allocation of quarters to the 1^st claimant, exhibit OA3 is the allocation letter to the 2^nd claimant while exhibit GU3 is allocation of quarters to the 3rd claimant. These exhibits confirm that the three claimants are legal occupants. The claimant’s averment in paragraphs 8 of amended statement of facts on the guideline for allocation of the premises was not controverted by the defendant as paragraph 5 of the statement of defense admits paragraph 8.

 

It is my view and I so hold that from the evidence, the claimants’ case succeeds and they are entitled to reliefs a, b, c and d as claimed. The prayers are granted as prayed.

 

Cost of N500,000 is awarded as cost against the defendant.

 

 Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

 

HON. JUSTICE A.N. UBAKA

JUDGE