➥ CASE SUMMARY OF:
Major Muritala Gbadamosi (Rtd) & Ors. v. H.R.H. Oba Tijani Adetunji Akinloye & Ors (2013)
by Branham Chima (LL.B.)
➥ SUBJECT MATTER(S)
Title to land;
Compulsory acquisition of land.
➥ CASE FACT/HISTORY
In 1977 the respondents’ family sold a portion of the Ojomu Chieftaincy, family land measuring 254.558 hectares to the appellants’ father, late Gbadamosi Bandele Eletu. The land is situate and known as Osapa Village in Eti-Osa Local Government Area of Lagos State. The transaction done through a Deed of Conveyance dated 23rd August, 1977 was duly registered as No.36 page 36 Volume 1648 at the Lands Registry, Lagos. By the Lagos State Government Notices Nos. 10 and 14 published in the Lagos State Official Gazette of February 19th and 26th, 1987 respectively, the Lagos State Government compulsorily acquired a vast area of land spanning several kilometres consisting of many villages and settlements. The acquired land included the appellants’ Osapa Village. The respondents brought an action in Suit No. ID/1883/89 (Alhaji Fatai Ajetunmobi & Ors. v. The Attorney-General of Lagos State) to challenge the compulsory acquisition. Judgment in the suit was delivered on the 18th day of October, 1991 in which the court granted the following reliefs in favour of the Ojomu Chieftaincy Family.
The issue in this appeal is whether the respondents who had earlier sold a portion of land vide a registered conveyance to the appellants can turn round to claim ownership of the same portion simply because the appellants had stood by and allowed the respondents to challenge the Lagos State Government who had revoked all rights of occupancy in and over a vast area of land in Lekki Peninsula in the Eti-Osa Local Government Area of Lagos State.
The learned trial Judge entered judgment against the defendants on issues settled where documents were admitted by consent of the parties without giving oral evidence. The judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeal Lagos Division (herein referred to as the court below). It is against this judgment that the appellants have further appealed to this Court.
➥ ISSUE(S)
I. Whether the respondents who had earlier sold a portion of land vide a registered conveyance to the appellants can turn round to claim ownership of the same portion simply because the appellants had stood by and allowed the respondents to challenge the Lagos State Government who had revoked all rights of occupancy in and over a vast area of land in Lekki Peninsula in the Eti-Osa Local Government Area of Lagos State?
➥ RESOLUTION(S) OF ISSUES
[APPEAL ALLOWED]
↪️ ISSUE 1: IN APPELLANT’S FAVOUR.
[BEFORE THE ACQUISITION, TITLE HAD ALREADY PASSED TO THE APPELLANT
‘It is not entirely true to say that the appellants could not claim any benefit that accrued to the respondents by virtue of the judgment in Suit No. ID/1883/89. At the time the respondents instituted that action against the Lagos State Government challenging the acquisition of the land, title to that portion of the land covered by exhibit C1 (the registered Deed of Conveyance) had already passed to Gbadamosi Bandele Eletu, the late father of the appellants. The interest which the respondents sought to protect in Suit No.ID/1883/89 included that of the appellants since the appellants derived their root of title from them and they sued for the whole of the Ojomu Chieftaincy Family Land. See:- Banire v. Balogun (1986) 4 NWLR (part 38) 746 at 753. When the Court declared that “the customary right of occupancy vested in the Plaintiffs in and over the land mentioned in claim (i) hereof has not been validly or effectively revoked by the Military Governor of Lagos State”, the interest of the parties returned to status quo before the purported acquisition. The respondents never disclosed to the Lagos State Government that they had divested themselves of their interest in the Osapa Village land and since the whole land was initially owned by the Ojomu Chieftaincy Family, it was logical that the Lagos State Government would return the land improperly acquired to the owners once the compulsory acquisition was rendered null and void by the Court.’
‘The respondents have not been consistent in their claim to the land. In one breath they claim it was the acquisition by the Lagos State Government which was not challenged that extinguished the appellants’ right to the land while in another breath they are asserting that it was the declaration made by the Court in Suit No. ID/1883/89 in their favour that extinguished the appellants’ interest in the land.’
‘The renunciation by the respondents of some portions of the acquired land in favour of the Lagos State Government could not affect the interest of the appellants since the respondents could not compromise the Osapa Village land in their settlement agreement with the Lagos State Government because they could not surrender what did not belong to them. Any negotiation embarked upon between the respondents and the Lagos State Government which led to the excision of some portions of the acquired land would be vested in the party whose interest was subsisting. And following the terms of agreement reached between the appellants and the Lagos State Government on 20th May, 1996 which became the judgment of the Court in Suit No. M/779/93 (Exhibit C3), the Excision Notice of June 23, 1994 should vest the 10 hectares (approximately 24.17 acres) reclaimed land in Osapa Village in the appellants. See. Dantsoho v. Mohammed (2003) 6 NWLR (Part 817) 457. It is quite ironic that the respondents who divested themselves of their title to the Osapa Village land since 1977 would be submitting that the Lagos State Government had no power, right or interest to transfer or alienate any portion of the land already declared by the Court in Suit No. ID/1883/89 as belonging to the respondents.’]
.
.
.
✓ DECISION:
‘I find that there is merit in the appeal and it is hereby allowed. The judgment of the Lagos High Court in Suit No. LD/2642/95 delivered on 11th October, 2000 which was affirmed by the Court of Appeal in CA/L/64/2001 on 12th May, 2004 are hereby set aside. The appellants are entitled to the statutory right of occupancy over 10 Hectares (which is approximately 24.l7acres) of the reclaimed land in Osapa Village which has been excised and assigned to them, a sketch plan of which was attached and marked ‘SCHEDULE 1’ to the terms of settlement dated 20th May, 1996 and made the judgment of the Court in Suit No. M/779/93.’
➥ FURTHER DICTA:
⦿
➥ LEAD JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY:
Kumai Bayang Aka’ahs, J.S.C.
➥ APPEARANCES
⦿ FOR THE APPELLANT(S)
⦿ FOR THE RESPONDENT(S)
➥ MISCELLANEOUS POINTS
➥ REFERENCED (LEGISLATION)
➥ REFERENCED (CASE)
➥ REFERENCED (OTHERS)
