By Peter Dansu
Justice A.|. Ityonyiman of rhe High Court of Justice of Benue has dismissed a suit brought by Isaac Ochenjele and three others, claiming the ownership of a school, Livingstone Academy, Anmoda Road, Oglweu in Ohinmi Local government Area of Benue state.
The court dismissed the suit in the ground that sufficient argument amd credible evidence were not made to substantiate their claims as the owners of the school.
Apart from Ochenjele, also joined as co-plaintiffs are Mrs. Deborah Durojaiye, Mercy Ochejele and Livingstone Academy Anmoda Oglewu Limited.
Defendant in the suit are Justice James Ogebe (Rtd), Abu Isah Noah, Alex Edeoja, Ejelekwu Ochinta and Ogah Idoga.
The plaintifs had prayed the court for the following reliefs: A declaration that the Plaintiffs are the beneficial owners of the Livingstone Academy, Anmoda Road, Oglewu.
A declaration that the action of the Defendants in breaking into the Plaintiffs’ school premises on September 9, 2024 and forcefully taking over the operations of the school, changing the locks to the offices, collecting, students school fees, and dissipating the resources of the school is unlawful and amounts to trespass.
An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, whether by . themselves, their privies, agents or any other person claiming through them or acting on their behalf or prompting or purporting to so act or howsoever, ) from interfering with, breaking into or otherwise disturbing, obstructing or forcefully taking over the Plaintiffs/Applicants’ ownership, possession and management of the school known as Livingstone Academy located at Anmoda Road, Oglweu in Ohinmi Local government Area.
An order for the Defendants to pay to the 4th Plaintiff (Livingstone Academy) the sum of N5,035,000.00 (Five Million and Thirty-Five Naira only) and also account for all other monies they collected as school fees and for any other reason from the students of the 4th Plaintiff from September 9, 2024, when they forcefully took over the administration of the school to September 19, 2024, when the Police dislodged them from the school and the sum of N100,000,00.00 (One Hundred Million Naira only) being damages for the Defendants’ trespass on the school premises from
The Plaintiffs had argued that Late Pastor Samuel Ochenjele at his lifetime, established the Livingstone Academy Anmoda, Oglewu in Ohinmi Local Government Area at its present location.
They told the court that the late pastor acquired the land on which it is located, built the school premises, and started the school as a co-educational institution.
"That he sought and was granted Phases 1, Il and III approval by the Benue State Ministry of Education to operate as a fully registered secondary school. That he appointed James Durojaiye as the Assistant School Administrator who later became the Administrator, and also appointed the him as the Principal, and the 3rd Plaintiff (Mercy Ochejele)
as the Bursar. That they have been running the school smoothly and peaceably until September 9, 2024 when the 2nd to 5th Defendants rudely interrupted the peace and tranquility of the school by forcefully breaking into the school during the absence of the school Administrator and the Principal.
"That they seized money, receipts and other documents of the school from the 3rd Plaintiff and evicted her out of the schoo! premises, changed the locks to all the offices, and began to dissipate the resources of the school and also extorted school fees in cash from the students to the tune of Five million, Thirty Five Thousand Naira only", the Plaintiffs argued.
The defendants led by a retired Supreme Court Justice, James Ogebe, disproved the arguments of the, plaintiffs.
They also argued that allegation of forcefully taking over the school, thereby destroying property worth millions of naira was false.
After listening to Counsel that represented parties in the suit, the court dismissed the case of the plaintiffs, saying that they have failed to prove their claims before the court.
The court held, "I have carefully considered the arguments proffered by the parties. The Learned Senior Counsel is making a case of the locus standi of the 4th Plaintiff to present this suit. His contention is that 4th Plaintiff is not Livingstone Academy established in 2001, 21 years before the 4th Defendant was incorporated. That the 4th Plaintiff did not exist during the lifetime of late Pastor Samuel Ochenjele and remains totally unknown to the deceased. That only a party with a substantiated legal right has legal authority to seek a remedy for the breach or injury to that legal right vide Thomas v. Olufosoye [1986] 1 NWLR (pt. 18) 669 @ 689-690 paras H-F.
"That the 4th Plaintiff failed to reflect in its pleading and evidence its legal right to seek declarations, injunctions and damages in this suit against the Defendants and therefore lacks the focus standi to institute and maintain this suit".
The court further held, "To begin with, late Pastor Samuel Ochenjele from whom the Plaintiffs draw their breath and strength, died in the year 2020.The 4th Plaintiff was incorporated in the year 2022 - see Exhibit P12. The supposed ‘alter ego’ of 4th Plaintiff died two years before the birth of the 4th Plaintiff. The 1st -3rd Plaintiffs are not shown to be either directors or shareholders. How then can they draw from the fountain of the preincorporation contract? | have my doubts whether that claim can avail the Plaintiffs.
"Additionally, paragraph one of the amended claim, introduced the 4th Plaintiff as a company with RC No. 1921788 carrying on the business of rendering educational services including the Livingstone Academy Anmoda, Oglewu. The school being one of the services rendered by the 4th Plaintiff cannot be fused together with the 4th Plaintiff. In effect, it cannot stand on equal footing with the person or body rendering the said service and | so hold.
"The thrust of the arguments of the defence on the issue is whether the 4" Plaintiff with her status as in Exhibit P12, has the legal right or authority to seek a remedy for the breach or injury to that legal right. That only a party with a substantiated legal right has the legal authority to seek a remedy for the breach or injury fo that legal right.
"The law is that for a person to have focus standi to institute an action, he has to show that he has special interest, that the interest is not vague, or intangible, supposed or speculative, or that it is not an interest which he shares with other members of the society. He also has to show that such interest has been adversely affected by the act or omission which he seeks to challenge -
‘It is also trite law that the standing will only be accorded a party who shows that his civil rights and obligation have been or, are in danger of being violated, or adversely affected by the act complained of.
"By paragraph 10 of the amended claim, the 4th Plaintiff is not shown to be one of the family members of late Pastor Samuel Ochenjele. It is a company whose interest is being agitated in this suit. The interest of the 1st - 3rd Plaintiffs as family members of late Pastor Samuel Ochenjele, is alien to that of the company. | have my doubts whether the 4th Plaintiff can make a case of interference in the interest and rights of the late Pastor Samuel Ochenjele family as a total stranger. The upshot of my reasoning is that the 4th Plaintiff does not have the locus to institute this suit. In consequence, the name of the 4th Plaintiff is hereby struck out".
The court said the Plaintiffs have not pleaded and led evidence on all material issues which they have to prove, and where they have led evidence, such evidence is manifestly unsatisfactory, and have therefore not made out a prima facie case.
Justice Ityonyiman concluded, "It therefore follows that with the variation in the evidence with pleadings, and failure to back up the pleadings with credible evidence on the invasion of the school, the case of the Plaintiffs is on a sticky wicket. The effect is that the Plaintiffs have no case, and indeed have not made out any, against any of the Defendants to warrant any confrontation or defence thereto. in Progressive Action Alliance v. INEC [2009] All FWLR (pt. 478) 260 @ 317 paras G-H, it was decided: “A defendant need not prove anything, if the plaintiff has not succeeded in establishing his case prima facie in order that the necessity to confront the case may so arise. Aromire v. Awoyeni [1972] 2 SC 7, Adeleke v. Inyanda [2001] 13 NWLR (pt. 729)..
"The suit is therefore a cul-de sac. In other words, Plaintiffs have not proved their claim on the preponderance of evidence. The claim must therefore fail. It fails and it is hereby dismissed."
No comments