J. B. Soboyede & Ors v. Minister Of Lands and Housing Western Nigeria (1974)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

G. B. A. COKER, J.S.C. 

This judgment concerns a large parcel of land situate at Mushin in the Ikeja Division of the Colony Province which was acquired in 1957 by the Government of Western Nigeria at a time when that part of the Colony Province of Lagos was within the territory of Western Nigeria. The Government of Western Nigeria, now respondents to this summons, took out an originating summons for the determination

“..of persons entitled to the compensation for the land described in the aforesaid notice and shown on PLAN MUSH 8A attached hereto. . . . .”

It appears that there was a total number of 17 claimants claiming in respect of portions of the said land, and that with respect to the first claimant E.O. Ashamu only two other claimants, the Odu Abore Family and the Alshe Family counterclaimed against him. Soon after the summons was mentioned in court, the Odu Abore Family and the Alashe Family filed in court notices of discontinuance of their own claims and transferring “the same absolutely to 1st claimant, E.O. Ashamu, to whom compensation in respect thereof should be paid by the Western Regional Government”. On the face of this, E.O. Ashamu, the first claimant, then applied by motion to the court for a “peremptory order directing the applicant, the Honourable the Ministry of Lands & Housing, to proceed within twenty-eight days from the date hereof to make an offer of compensation to the said 1st claimant for the compulsory acquisition of the said claimant’s leasehold right and interest in the areas marked plots 1 and 2 on the Claims Plan No. MUSH 8A herein on the ground that his said claim namely for loss of leasehold interest in the said area, does not conflict with the claim of any of the claimants herein.”

The application of the 1st claimant Ashamu was in due course heard by the court and an order was made thereon as follows:

“Order as prayed. The Minister of Lands and Housing to make an offer of compensation to the 1st claimant E.O. Ashamu in respect of his leasehold right and interest in the area marked plots 1 and 2 on the Claims Plan No. MUSH. 8A within 30 days.”

On the same day that the above order was made the learned trial judge also ordered the remaining claimants to file their respective statements of interest within 30 days.

Evidently with regard to the 1st claimant Ashamu, there was nothing more to litigate as the two parties claiming against him had surrendered their rights and interests to the 1st claimant, who thereafter had obtained an order of court that he should be offered an amount of compensation. It appears the records that no satisfactory offer of compensation was either made to the 1st claimant or received by him from the Minister of Lands & Housing and counsel for the 1st claimant submitted that in view of the noncompliance by the Minister with the order of court, he would prove his entitlement by evidence. The records suggest that at this stage it was agreed by those concerned that the 1st claimant might then proceed to give evidence to prove the amount of compensation to which he considered himself entitled, for the learned trial judge recorded the following observations concerning counsel:

“Chief Davies says that both sides have agreed that issue is for determination by court of the amount of compensation and that the 1st claimant should start so that the applicant would know what case to meet.”

Thereafter evidence was led concerning the amount of compensation claimed and payable and the learned trial judge eventually gave judgment deciding the amount of compensation to be paid to Ashamu.

Manifestly, this procedure has left undecided the other issues arising on the originating summons and in particular the claims of the other claimants who did not claim against Ashamu and whose claims and counter-claims were as well the subject-matter of the originating summons. After the case of Ashamu was decided the judgment given, it appears that what is left for determination on the originating summons was mentioned for hearing before Sagoe, Ag. J., on the 10th october, 1968. After a number of adjournments, Sagoe, Ag. J., on the 3rd February, 1969, began taking evidence with respect to the remaining claims. The remaining claimants apparently gave evidence before him and called witnesses. Learned counsel appearing for the respective claimants thereafter addressed the court at length concerning the respective claims of the claimants and the titles which they had put forward. In a reserved judgment, the learned trial judge decided as follows:

“I believe that the 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 16th and 17th claimants were in possession of the various plots claimed by them on the 15th October, 1957, the date of the acquisition by the old Western Region Government, and I declare them entitled to compensation in respect of the plots shown against them in paragraph 4 (supra).

As the 13th claimant’s claim is disallowed in toto, he is not entitled to any compensation even in respect of Plots 4, 7, 9 and 13 (in parcel B on Ex. ‘A’) for, which claims were originally submitted by the 3rd, 5th, 7th, 10th and 11th claimants but who, for one reason or the other, did not or could not pursue their claims.”

Evidently, this judgment appreciably deals with the subject-matter of the originating summons for its purports to decide those who were, on the evidence before the court, entitled to be paid compensation in respect of aliquot portions of the land acquired in respect of which they have established their titles.