On Issues Of Counter-Claim

although a counter claim is a distinct action, and a separate decision would be given in respect of the counter-claim, it must be directly related to the principal claim and not outside and independent of the subject-matter of the principal claim. See Oyegbola vs. Esso West Africa (1966) 1 all NLR 170.
Awosanya vs. Federal Ministry of Environment, Housing & Urban Development and ORS.(2021) LCN/14971(ca).
Issue: counter-claim-Whether a court with subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a main claim can lack same to hear a counter-claim(Issue is mine)
Principle:
“I think the Appellant’s Counsel was only grandstanding, when he tried to fault the jurisdiction of the trial Court, on appeal, to entertain the counter-claim, on the allegation that the 4th Respondent was seeking “declaration of title to land and possession”, which is outside the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. Appellant did not raise any such issue of lack of absence of jurisdiction at the trial Court, because, I believe, he knew the truth that the real issue in the case was the sale of the property to 4th Respondent by the 1st to 3rd Respondents, rather than to him, Appellant!
The case was never one for title to land, despite the inelegant couching of the reliefs by the 4th defendant at the trial Court. It could not have been issue of title and possession to land, because both Appellant and the 4th Respondent had acknowledged the Government (represented by 1st to 3rd Respondents) as the owner of property, No. 9 Mekunwen Road, Ikoyi, Lagos, and that the same was sold to the 4th Respondent, even when he (Appellant) was still on the property and wanted same to be sold to him (Appellant)! See the reliefs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 by the Appellant in this case (earlier produced).
And so all the legal gymnastics/arguments and cases cited as to whether the trial Court (Federal High Court) had jurisdiction to hear and entertain a case seeking title to land and possession of land, were, in my opinion, completely unnecessary, and a distraction in this case, as the case of the 4th Respondent, was obviously, a counter-claim, to affirm the sale of the property to him by the 1st to 3rd Respondent and for the consequential orders for Appellant to vacate the property!
It is however conceded, that the couching of the reliefs sought by 4th Defendant’s Counsel in the counter-claim were quite inelegant, talking about declaration that 4th Respondent was the lawful owner and title holder of the property; and for possession of the said piece or parcel of land.”
I do not think the Appellant or any of the parties failed to understand the real issues before the trial Court, by the two sides, for determination, as earlier stated in this judgment, and so none can claim to have been misled by the said in-elegance in the drafting and presenting the claims (reliefs) in the counter-claim, nor by the findings and decision of the trial Court thereon. Courts are expected to pursue substantial justice, not technicalities.
It is also quite glaring, that the substance of the two cases questioned or sought, to justify the power of the 1st to 3rd Respondents to deal with the property, No. 9 Mekunwen Road, Ikoyi, Lagos, by selling same to 4th Respondent, and how the sale was made. While Appellant questioned the sale, the 4th Respondent justified it and sought an order for Appellant to vacate the property, and because the 1st to 3rd Respondents are Federal Government Agencies, which controlled and administered the property by virtue of Section 49 of the Land Use Act, 1978. The Section concedes to the Federal Government or its agency to hold title to land. The provision says:
“49(1) Nothing in this Act shall affect any title to land whether developed or undeveloped held by the Federal Government or any agency of the Federal Government at the commencement of this Act and accordingly, any such land and shall continue to rest in the Federal Government or the agency concerned.
49(2) In this section, ‘agency’ includes any statutory corporation or any other statutory body (whether corporate or unincorporate) or any company wholly owned by the Federal Government.”
Of course, Section 251(1)(r) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, as amended, says: “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the Federal High Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other Court in civil causes and matters;
(r) any action or proceeding for a declaration or injunction affecting the validity of any executive or administrative action or decision by the Federal Government or any of its agency and…”
There is no doubt that the action or decision of the 1st to 3rd Respondents (Federal Agencies) to sell the property owned by the Government, to the 4th Respondent is at the root of this case of the Appellant and the 4th Respondent. The trial Court (Federal High Court) is therefore the appropriate Court with requisite jurisdiction to determine the dispute(s), in my opinion. See the views of my Lord Okoro, JCA, (as he then was) in the case of Minister, Federal Housing Authority & Urban Development & Anor. Vs. Bello (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1155) 345 at 364-365.
Certainly, this was not a land case, or one for declaration of title, since the parties had agreed that title was vested in the Federal Government, and which transferred the title to the 4th Respondent. Appellant only disputed the sale, saying it ought to have been to him! The trial Court was therefore properly located to pronounce on the sale, whether it was valid or not, and whether the Appellant was entitled to it or not.
I think that, even if the trial Judge/Court were not to have jurisdiction to entertain the 4th Respondent’s counter-claim because of the inelegance or wrongs in the drafting of the reliefs sought, that the striking out of the counter-claim would not affect the value passed to the 4th Respondent by the 1st to 3rd Respondents in the property, upon the dismissal of the Appellant’s case by the lower Court. The challenge of jurisdiction, in the circumstances, was not well thought out, in my opinion.” Per MBABA, JCA.
Astor wrote from N.Ngbea & Co Chambers, Makurdi, Benue State.

By: King Onunwor with
reports from James Astor