Registered Trustees Of The Apostolic Church, Etc V. Attorney-general, Mid-western States & Ors (1972)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

G. S. SOWEMIMO, J.S.C.

The 1st appellant, who was the plaintiff in the High Court, sued the 1st defendant/respondent at the Ubiaja High Court, in the Mid-Western State in Suit No. U/1O/68. The claim in that suit reads:-

“The plaintiffs’ claim against the defendant is as follows:-

(1) A declaration that the plaintiffs are the proprietors of Apostolic Church School, Amoya-Otuo and Apostolic Church School, Igarra. (Both schools are within the jurisdiction of this court.)

(2) A declaration of title to the said school buildings, the land on which they stand and everything appertaining thereto, in favour of the plaintiffs.

(3) A declaration that the decision or order of the 3rd defendant [now 2nd respondent] made on or about 17th April, 1965 transferring the said schools to the 4th defendant is unlawful, invalid and therefore null and void.”

After a lengthy hearing the learned trial judge concluded his judgment in favour of the defendants in the following terms:-

“In summing up I will reiterate that the plaintiffs have not established their proprietorship to either of the schools they now claim; nor have they established their exclusive titles to the parcels of land on which the said schools and other appurtenances stand. Also they have not satisfied me that the 3rd defendant acted ultra vires by inviting both the A.C. and C.A.C. to a meeting in his office in order to resolve the ownership of the schools although I regard the 3rd defendant’s act as a purely administrative and no more. One other point is that the 4th defendant to whom the schools were alleged transferred by the 3rd defendant had been dropped from this action and the plaintiffs did not amend their writ in relation thereto.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs have not satisfied this court that they are the registered trustees of the Apostolic Church, Ilesha Area, Nigeria, West Africa, the capacity in which they have instituted this action. This is not a case where a non-suit can be considered and from the premises I am constrained to dismiss the plaintiffs’ case on all the arms of claim.”

It is against this judgment that the plaintiffs have appealed to this Court. The case arose out of the decision of the Ministry of Education of Mid-Western State as to who should be given the grants-in-aid of the two schools at Igarra and Amoya-Otuo mentioned in the writ. In coming to a decision on this issue, an inquiry was held with the consent of both parties, viz. the representatives of the Apostolic Church as presently constituted and those of the Christ Apostolic Church. When eventually the decision was given and it did not favour the plaintiffs they instituted this action. The main point of conflict is as to the ownership of the two schools and church at Igarra and Amoya-Otuo.

The plaintiffs averred in their statement of claim that the Apostolic Church was incorporated under the Land (Perpetual Succession) Act and their registration number is 186; that by virtue of the said trust, they hold a number of secondary modern and primary schools which include that of Igarra-Oke and Amoya-Otuo Church Schools; that the 2nd respondent (then the third defendant) decided that the two schools which had been under their management since 1949 should be taken over by the 5th defendant (now 3rd respondent) from 1st July, 1965; that the land at Igarra-Oke was allotted to the plaintiffs in 1935 and they built the school in 1951; that a similar portion of land was allotted to them in Amoya many years ago and that they built a school thereon; that at the time they were granted land in 1935, the Christ Apostolic Church was then not in existence; that in 1949 the plaintiffs took over the running of the Apostolic Church School at Amoya-Otuo in response to the appeal of the community; that the Apostolic Church had existed for many years and at its inception was known as the ‘Faith Tabernacle Church’; that at one time one Babalola, a prophet of rare ability and piety, and his followers joined forces with the Faith Tabernacle in 1930, but that he and his followers broke away after a schism in 1941 but this was not known at Igarra and Amoya-Otuo until 1945 or 1946; that the Babalola group became known as the Christ Apostolic Church whereas the Faith Tabernacle had by 1931 adopted the name of Apostolic Church.

The 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants in their statement of defence denied that the plaintiffs were incorporated under the Land (Perpetual Succession) Act and therefore put them to a strict proof of this. Suffice it to say that the plaintiffs failed to prove that they were so incorporated. The 3rd defendant (now the 2nd respondent) averred that it was at the instance and consent of the plaintiffs and 5th defendant, and in order to avert possible clash between the two factions, that he decided to inquire into their different claims and made a settlement.

The 5th defendant (now 3rd respondent) averred that the Christ Apostolic Church of Nigeria was registered in Nigeria in May 1943 under the Land (Perpetual Succession) Act, 1924. The registration number is 147. The 5th defendant also averred that Joseph Ayo Babalola founded the Christ Apostolic Church on 11th May, 1928; that the Apostolic Church started in Nigeria in 1932; that the pieces of land at Igarra-Oke and Amoya-Otuo were granted to the 5th defendant and they erected a church school in each place; that the said schools were named St. Paul’s School, Amoya-Otuo and St. Joseph’s School, Igarra-Oke; that the plaintiffs in 1949 assumed unlawful possession of the two schools by false propaganda and there had never been any formal or legal transfer of the two schools; that protests were made from 1949 to 1950 and 1964 and 1965 by the 5th defendant against the unlawful possession.

Evidence led by both sides showed that each side depends on the history of its church as determining the ownership of the two schools at Igarra-Oke and Amoya-Otuo. Before examining the disputed histories as between the appellant and the 3rd respondent we would like to dispose of the appeal as it affects the 1st and 2nd respondents (1st and 3rd defendants).