Presidential Implementation Committee On FG Landed Properties Loses To Plaintiff

THE Federal High court sitting in Jos Friday upheld the prayers of the Plaintiff, Engr. Isaac Osaro, a civil servant, against the Presidential Implementation Committee on Federal Government Landed Properties, which wanted to forcefully eject him from the leasehold interest in Abuja by revoking his offer of leasehold interest.

  The plaintiff, through his counsel, Mr. Arome Okwori, wanted a declaration that his offer of leasehold interest by the defendant, through its letter dated 14th July, 2010, is legal, valid and subsisting.

  He also wanted a declaration that the purported revocation of his offer of leasehold interest by the defendant through its letter dated 8th November, 2013 is wrongful, null and void. 

  He also sought an order nullifying the purported notice of government’s intention to recover possession of the property being occupied by the plaintiff situated at 5A, Flat 4, Mangu Road, GRA, Jos, Plateau State.

   Osaro also sought an order restraining the defendant from evicting him and granting him more time to enable him to raise funds to pay the balance of the consideration for the lease in view of his inability to secure a loan to finance the leasehold within the stipulated tenure.

  The plaintiff in this matter is a civil servant in the employment of the federal government, who resides in one of the landed properties belonging to the federal government as a tenant and by virtue of which he is entitled to benefit from the monetization policy of the federal government.

   The defendant is a committee set up by the federal government under the Presidency to implement the White Paper on the Commission of Inquiry into the alienation of federal government landed properties. Consequently, the defendant came up with a guideline on how to implement the federal government monetization policy in relation to the federal government’s landed properties being occupied b federal government staff.

Based on those approved guidelines, the plaintiff expressed interest in respect of a two bedroom flat in a block of four flats plus one room boy’s quarters at No 5A, Flat 4, Mangu Road, GRA, Jos, Plateau State.

The plaintiff’s request was granted by the federal government in a letter dated 14th July, 2010, which was based on terms and conditions. The plaintiff being a civil servant who depends on monthly salaries, could not raise funds to fulfil the terms and conditions of the offer within the stipulated time of 180 days as approved in the offer letter.

But the defendant who was aware of the plaintiff’s inability to raise pay went ahead to serve the plaintiff with a notice of revocation dated 8th November, 2013.

However, in his counter-claims, the defendant, through his counsel, Mr. Ricky Anderifun, argued that the crux of the defence whose alleged act of commission prompted the plaintiff’s case is the contention that the plaintiff having accepted the terms and conditions as contained in the offer letter which terms and conditions were to be fulfilled within 180days of the acceptance of offer, has failed to comply and thereby defaulted and time being of the essence of the whole transaction, can no longer continue to hold on to the property, “the offer having elapsed.”

  The defendant therefore raised two issues for determination in the suit, asking whether from the pleadings and the evidence available, the plaintiff can be said to have established his case to be entitled to the reliefs sought in the suit.

  He also asked whether from the pleadings and the evidence available, the defendant is entitled to its counter-claim as incorporated in its statement of defense/counter-claim.

  The defense counsel argued that the plaintiff has a heavy duty to prove by way of credible evidence and on the strength of his case for him to be entitled to the reliefs sought.

   Curiously, the plaintiff also formulated two issues for determination: Whether the plaintiff has proved his case as required by law to be entitled to the reliefs claimed by him, and whether the defendant has proved the counter-claim as required by law to be entitled to the reliefs claimed. 

  Having listened to the two parties and after reviewing their arguments and submissions, Mr. Justice Ambrose Allagoa, of the Federal High Court Jos, yesterday, held that the federal government undertook to arrange loan-financing scheme to enable the plaintiff to acquire the property within the stipulated period of 180 days.