OZURUMBA NSIRIM. V. DR. SAMUEL W. AMADI

Issue:

The Respondent herein as Plaintiff at the trial High Court commenced the suit as "the Administrator of the estate of Late Christian O. Amadi by virtue of letters of administration" over Plot 91 Gborokiri Layout, otherwise known as No.3 Andoni Street, Gborokiri, Port Harcourt. The reliefs sought by the Plaintiff at the High Court are stated hereunder:- 1. A declaration that the Plaintiff who is the next of kin of Chief Christian O. Amadi (deceased) is entitled to the grant of letter of Administration in respect of Plot 91 Gborokiri Layout, otherwise known as No, 3 Andoni Street, Gborokiri, Port Harcourt. 2. A declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to the Assignment of the leasehold interest in respect of Plot 91 Gborokiri Layout, otherwise known as No. 3 Andoni Street Gborokiri, Port Harcourt. 3. An order revoking and/or nullifying the letters of Administration dated 15/2//82 purportedly granted to the Defendant in respect of the said Plot 91 Gborokiri Layout otherwise known as No. 3 Andoni Street, Gborokiri, Port Harcourt. 4. An order for the Defendant to account for all the rents he wrongfully collected from the tenants in the Premises from 23/4/80 (when his father's interest in the property ceased) to the date of judgment and payment of the same over to the estate of Chief Christian O. Amadi (deceased). 5. An order of perpetual injunction to restrain the Defendants and/or his servants and agents from interfering with the said property." The Appellant as Defendant denied the Claims of the Plaintiff and challenged the locus standi of the plaintiff to institute the action. Evidence was led at the end of which the High Court gave judgment in favour of the Defendant/Appellant on ground that his father having granted a Power of Attorney to another person had nothing left to assign to the brother of the Plaintiff/Respondent. On appeal to the Court of Appeal or Court below for short that Court allowed the appeal only respect of paragraph 24(2) of the Statement of claim, directed the respondent to take steps to have the assignment duly registered and apply for the re-certification of the register of Title Deeds. Also that appellate Court refused to consider the issue of the capacity or locus standi of the respondent in that Court on the ground that the Appellant had not complied with Order 3, Rule 14 (1) of the Court of Appeal Rules. Being dissatisfied, the appellant has approached this Apex Court on four grounds of appeal.