Court emphasized the necessity for proper legal foundation in originating summons and affirmed the separation of powers, limiting judicial interference in executive matters regarding land tenure.

Introduction

[1] The Plaintiffs have applied to the Court by this Originating Summons ("OS") for a Declaration that the land tenure of 99 years issued by the Land Office to be reverted to a tenure in perpetuity as it was originally was.

Brief Facts

[2] The Plaintiffs are registered owners of a residence originally held under land grants having tenure in perpetuity.

[3] This land grants were surrendered to the Land Office for purposes of sub divisions for the development of a housing project. After surrender upon new titles being issued, the tenure in perpetuity was changed to a 99 years lease.

[4] The Plaintiffs allege that the conversion of the tenure from perpetuity to a 99 years lease is unlawful and unconstitutional. By this OS the Plaintiff applies for a Declaration from the Court to declare that the land is held in perpetuity instead of 99 years.

The Intitulement

[5] Order 7 r 1A the Rules of Court 2012 ("the Rules") states the rules governing intitulement in the OS as follows:

2. Forms of originating summons (O 7 r 2)

(1A) Every originating summons shall state in its intitulement any provision of these Rules and any provision of any written law under which the Court is being moved.

[6] In the intitulement to the present OS, the provisions of law relied upon includes s 417 of the National Land Code (Revised 2020) (" NLC ") andart 13(1) of the Federal Constitution (" FC ").

[7] For ease of reference both the provisions are reproduced here:

Section 417 of the National Land Code

(1) The Court or a Judge may by order direct the Registrar or any Land Administrator to do all such things as may be necessary to give effect to any judgment or order given or made in any proceedings relating to land, and it shall be the duty of the Registrar or Land Administrator to comply with the order forthwith.

(2) Where, pursuant to any order made by virtue of this section, the Registrar or any Land Administrator:

(a) cancels any instrument relating to land, or any memorial or other entry on any such instrument, or

(b) makes any other amendment of, or addition to, any such instrument,

[8] Article 13 of the Federal Constitution

1) No person shall be deprived of property save in accordance with law.

(2) No law shall provide for the compulsory acquisition or use of property without adequate compensation.

[9] It is starkly clear that both this provisions of the law do not empower the Court to give a Declaration sought for. Section 417 NLC only binds the Registrar or Land Administrator to comply with a Court order once given. The provision does not empower the Court to give an order applied for in this case.

[10] In this case the source of power empowering the Court to make such an order is not stated. The Court cannot be expected to guess by itself the applicable provisions of law without the Plaintiffs themselves stating the applicable provision of law.

[11] Article 13 of the FC is totally inapplicable as the Plaintiffs in have not alleged that they have been unlawfully deprived of their land. The complaint is that the land tenure has been reduced. The Court rules that change of the land tenure does not amount to deprivation of land as envisaged in art 13 of the .

[12] The proper provisions of the law that should have been stated in the intitulement are the provisions of the National Land Code with regards to surrendering of the title and re- alienation of the land. None of this provisions are stated in the intitulement. As there are numerous provisions with regards to surrendering of a title and re alienation the Court is again left guessing the applicable provisions. This failure of the intitulement cannot be c