Ise-Oluwa Ige
1 May 2008
AN Abuja high court sitting in Maitama yesterday dismissed a request by the Federal Capital Development Authourity (FCDA) to terminate a N3.8billion civil suit instituted against it by Bulet International Nigeria Limited (BINL).
The trial high court judge, Justice Lawal Gumi who dismissed the FCDA's request said the application lacked merit.
The Federal Capital Development Authourity (FCDA) under the leadership of Malam Nasir el-Rufai had demolished the Headquarters of Bulet International Nigeria Limited in spite of an interim order of an Abuja high court restraining it from doing so.
Bulet International Nigeria Limited is a construction firm with headquarters located on Plot 4, Sheu Shagari Way, Central Area, Abuja, beside the Federal Secretariat.
Following the demolition of its headquarters, Bulet International Nigeria Limited (BINL) had sued both the Minister in charge of the Federal Capital Territory and the FCDA before the Abuja high court claiming a total N3, 862, 734, 840.00 as damages.
That was beside a separate quasi criminal proceedings instituted by it to jail both the minister, el-Rufai and all the caterpillar operators who demolished the structure.
While hearing was to commence in the case, both the FCT Minister and the FCDA named as defendants in the case came with a preliminary objection to the hearing of the suit.
They urged the court to dismiss the entire suit filed by Bulet on the grounds that the suit in its entirety lacked reasonable cause of action; that the FCT Minister lacked legal personality and that the suit was irregular and incompetent as the originating processes predated the cause of action.
The FCDA supported the application with an 11-paragraph affidavit.
On the day the application was to be heard, Bulet International did not file any counter-affidavit.
But the firm represented by the Chambers of Ben Anachebe (SAN) said that it would not delay hearing in the case and opted to go ahead by only replying to the arguments of FCDA on points of law.
Mr Pacer Guobadia argued the preliminary objection for the FCDA while Mrs Frances Anachebe replied on behalf of Bulet International.
Ruling on the preliminary objection yesterday, Justice Gumi held: "on the first issue of whether there is a disclosed reasonable cause of action, I dare say that the question here is can the allegations in the statement of claim of the plaintiff (Bulet) be said to meet this requirement?
"I have looked at averments in paragraphs 18 to 25 of the plaintiff's amended statement of claim filed on August 27, 2007 wherein it is alleged among other things that the Bulet's premises with its building structures was forcibly demolished by the defendants resulting into alleged estimated loss of earnings, business and goodwill in consequence of the demolition
"It is my firm view that these paragraphs in the statement of claim have raised some substantial questions fit to be determined by this court.
"I agree with the submission of Mrs Anachebe that the issue whether the plaintiff is a licencee or a proper tenant is an issue which can be properly determined at the main hearing of the substantive suit and not at this prehearing stage.
"It is my considered view therefore that there is disclosed in the statement of claim a reasonable cause of action maintainable against the defendants. I accordingly resolve this issue in favour of the respondent (Bulet).
"On the issue of legal personality of FCT Minister, by virtue of section 299, 301 and 302 of the 1999 constitution and also in view of section 18 (a-d)of the FCT Act Cap 56 Vol 6, LFN 2004 which empowers the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to delegate his powers and functions exercisable under these sections to the FCT Minister, it is my view that FCT Minister is a creation of statute and as such is clothed with the juristic personality to sue or be sued.
"In the light of the foregoing, I am of the view therefore that FCT Minister has legal personality and is properly made as a defendant in this suit. I also resolve this issue in favour of the respondent (Bulet).
"On whether the originating processes in this suit is incompetent, I have seen the avermentsin paragraph six of the affidavit in support of this application which states that the originating summons in this suit was filed on May 14, 2007 while the cause of action in the case as embodied in the plaintiff's claim arose on May 15, 2007".
"I have observed from the facts herein that the originating summons in this suit was filed on May 14, 2007 while the alleged demolition took place on May 15. The pertinent question is when did the cause of action in this suit arose.
"I am of the view that although the originating summons was filed on May 14, 2007, it is obvious that the reliefs sought therein were meant purposely to restrain the demolition of Bulet premises.
"It is trite that statement of claim supercedes the writ of summons. It is my considered view that since the originating summons has been converted into a writ of summons, the statement of claim takes precedence over the originating summons".
"I have therefore come to the conclusion that the contention that the originating summons in this suit is incompetent is with respect a gross misconception.
"The originating summons was properly filed and its conversion to a writ of summons was in order.
"On the whole, I find that this application lacks merit and I accordingly dismiss it," he said.
The legal hurdle against the hearing of the suit having been demolished yesterday, the court is expected to go into the merit of the case at the next adjourned date.
Specifically, the Bulet International is expected to call its witnesses into the box to prove its case against the FCDA.
Bulet, in the suit, is asking the court to grant it six major reliefs including:
*A declaration that the defendants are not entitled to invoke self-help or howsoever forcibly eject the claimant or demolish or tamper with their numerous building structures and machinery erected or affixed at their construction yard comprising plots 752 and 753 municipally known on plot 4, Sheu Shagari way, Central Area , Abuja without recourse to due process of law;
*An order of court compelling the defendants to allocate an alternative construction yard to the claimant within the vicinity of the yard to aid completion of the on-going phase 2 prototype Federal Ministries expansive secretariat project for which the claimant's present construction site was allocated and or designed to serve
*N886,225,600 million being special damages atrising from the wanton demolition and destruction of the claimant's machinery, equipment and building structures erected, affixed or lying on the subject land
*N976,509,240.49 million being special damages arising from the consequential losses suffered as a result of a disruption of operations \business
*N2 billion aggravated and exemplary damages for the arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional demolition of the claimant's said premises by the defendants and their agents
*Interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the judgment debt until full liquidation.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2008 Vanguard. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
