Lasisi Fadare & Ors V. Attorney General Of Oyo State (19782)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

NNAMANI, J.S.C.

In this suit the plaintiffs/appellants (hereinafter known as appellants) brought a claim in the High Court of Oyo State against the Attorney-General of Oyo State (herein referred to as the respondent) in the following terms:

“1. The plaintiffs claim against the defendant for a declaration that the plaintiffs were the owners by inheritance under native law and custom of pieces or parcels of land thousands of acres at Oritamefa, Ibadan abutting both sides of Queen Elizabeth Road running from the TOTAL GARDEN ROUNDABOUT and stretching

(a) towards the Secretariat Road;

(b) Onikoko Stream, embracing both Oba Ademola II and Oba Abimbola Streets;

(c) Are Family Land (all on the one side of Queen Elizabeth Road) and on the other side;

(d) the stretch of land from Queen Elizabeth Road up to Ojo Stream extending upwards to the land at the upper Ojo Stream Agodi Area, up to and also embracing the land on which stands the I.D.H. compulsorily acquired under Government acquisition ‘F’ without notice and without compensation.

  1. An order that adequate compensation be paid to the plaintiffs for

i) economic crops destroyed on the land;

ii) buildings then on the land (51 in all);

iii) the land itself; and

iv) any other equitable relief the Court may deem fit to award in the circumstances.

Government offices in Ibadan are replete with both several and joint petitions from the claimants from the early 1930’s calling for payment of compensation without success. Value of the land is over ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND NAIRA (N100,000)”

See also  Raphael Ejezie & Anor V Christopher Anuwu & Ors (2008) LLJR-SC

Pleadings were ordered, duly filed and exchanged between the parties. In their statement of claim the appellants averred in paragraphs 9, 11, 18 and 20 as follows:

“9. The plaintiffs further aver that it was never at any time officially brought to the notice of the illiterate settlers the clear intention of the Government; no notices were ‘served’ on the owners, no bell men proclaimed the acquisition according to native custom; no agreement as to whether the acquisition would be fee simple or for a ten of years; no agreement as to the rent payable per annum per acre. . .

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *