Case Summary and Legal Principles in Tozhewo & Ors v. Winning Clause Ltd & Anor (2025) LPELR-80343(CA)

Case Summary:

This case revolves around a land dispute. The 1st Respondent (Winning Clause Ltd) claimed ownership of the land based on a lease agreement with the 2nd Respondent (the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Authority) under the Mass Housing Development Programme. The Appellants (Tozhewo & Ors), who are the original inhabitants of the land, counterclaimed, asserting their rights to the land and seeking protection from eviction without alternative resettlement.

The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory ruled in favor of the 1st Respondent, granting their claims and dismissing the Appellants' counterclaim as an abuse of court process. Dissatisfied, the Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Key Legal Principles:

1. Effect of Non-Compliance with a Subpoena:

If a party fails to comply with a subpoena to produce a document, the party who issued the subpoena is entitled to present secondary evidence of the document. The non-complying party cannot object to the admissibility of such secondary evidence.

2. Privity of Contract:

Only parties to a contract can enforce its terms. A third party who is not privy to the contract cannot challenge or enforce its terms. This principle was reinforced by the Court of Appeal, citing several precedents.

3. Locus Standi (Legal Standing):

The Appellants, being strangers to the lease agreement between the 1st and 2nd Respondents, lacked the locus standi to challenge the validity of the contract. This principle was upheld by the Court of Appeal, emphasizing that only parties to a contract can question its validity or enforce its terms.

Conclusion:

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the lower court, reinforcing key legal principles such as privity of contract, locus standi, and the admissibility of secondary evidence when a subpoena is not complied with. The case underscores the importance of being a party to a contract to enforce or challenge its terms and highlights the consequences of trespassing on legally allocated land.

This decision serves as a reminder to legal practitioners to ensure that claims and counterclaims are grounded in valid legal standing and that contractual disputes must involve only the party's privy to the agreement.