The judgment of an Osogbo High Court 4 in a case of breach of contract over the development of a parcel of land in the Osun Sate capital has been rejected by the plaintiff in the suit, Prolynx Consultancy Limited.
Dissatisfied by the judgement, the company has therefore filed an appeal suit at the Court of Appeal sitting in Akure, Ondo State Capital.
Prolynx Consultancy Limited had filed a suit through its Counsel, Mr. Adeboye Sobanjo before the Osogbo High Court 2, seeking 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 Mr. Kunle Omisore filed counter suit before the same court for the enforcement of his fundamental human rights and after reviewing the case, the Presiding Judge, Hon. Justice S.O. 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.
He declared 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 however 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 Respondent’s 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. He stated that the Respondent’s action before the trial court is 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.
According to Mr. Sobanjo, the learned 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 the Applicant and the 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 Respondent’s application clearly disclosed that there is a contractual dispute between the respondent 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, stressing that the resolution of the contractual dispute between the respondent and the Appellant cannot be determined as done by the trial court 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 the court of Appeal to uphold his appeal and set aside the decision of the trial court dated October 19, 2022 delivered in suit HOS/M.209/2022.
Related Posts
