Facts:

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Ado-Ekiti Division, which affirmed the decision of the High Court of Ekiti State, Ado Ekiti.

Sometimes in 2007, the appellant was granted title to a parcel of land, for the purpose of building a five star hotel. A Certificate of Occupancy was issued to the appellant in 2008. Subsequently, the Certificate was withdrawn and another one was issued in its place in 2011, but registered in 2012. Both Certificates contained terms and conditions which needed to be fulfilled. Also inclusive in the terms of the grant was that the appellant must erect and complete the building on the land in line with Government approved building plans within 2 years of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. The appellant failed to comply with the terms of the grant particularly as it related to the payment of ground rent and development of the land within 2 years of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, consequent upon which the 1st respondent by notice of revocation, revoked the appellant’s right of occupancy and subsequently awarded the said parcel of land to the 4th Respondent.

In October 2016, the notice of revocation was published in a newspaper. Aggrieved that the notice of revocation was served or made known to it through the dailies, the appellant commenced an action at the High Court, challenging the revocation.

The 1st – 3rd respondents filed a preliminary objection challenging the competence of the action on the grounds inter alia, that the action is statute barred, and that the suit discloses no reasonable cause of action. The 4th respondent also filed a preliminary objection along the same terms. The appellant filed a counter-affidavit denying receipt or service of any notice of revocation in December 2014.

The trial Court heard arguments on both objections and upheld the respondents’ objection that the action is statute barred, after finding as a fact that the appellant was served with the notice of revocation in December 2014.

Dissatisfied with the ruling of the Court, the appellant appealed against same to the Court of Appeal, albeit unsuccessfully. Appellant appealed further to the Supreme Court.