Chief Daniel Ogbonnaya & Ors Vs Adapalm Nigeria Limited (1993)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

KUTIGI, J.S.C.

The plaintiffs, now appellants, in paragraph 17 of their Statement of Claim, claimed against the defendant, now respondent, the following:-

(a) A declaration that it is not consistent with public interest to deprive the members of Obuozu Ndoki Community of their only farm land (Ala Oru Obuozu) for the establishment of a palm plantation particularly in a situation of general scarcity of food and survival by self reliance,

(b) A declaration that it is an act of trespass for the defendant to enter the Ala Oru Obuozu situate at Obuozu Ndoki within jurisdiction in a manner inconsistent with section 40 of the 1979 Nigeria Constitution.

(c) N1,000.00 General Damages for trespass, to Ala Oru Obuozu

(d) An injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, assigns, personal representative or any person acting through or by his authority from entering, clearing or doing any act on the land called Ala Oru Obuozu.

This appeal arose from a motion on notice by the Plaintiffs/Appellants.

For an order of court restraining the defendant/respondent from entering, clearing or continuing to enter or clear or in any manner dealing with the Ala Oru Obuozu pending the determination of this suit.

The motion was supported by an affidavit sworn to by one Chief Daniel Ogbonnaya, the first plaintiff, Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 read as follows –

5.That ala oru Obuozu is the only farmland we have that in it is the only land without big trees which will not inhibit crop cultivation.

6. That at this moment we have our cassava farm on it, and this is what the village hopes to survive in these days when garri costs 2 cups for N1.00
7. That if the respondent is allowed as he plans to do, to clear that land for its plantation we shall lose our food farm and be exposed to starvation, a situation which cannot be solved by palm seedlings or even monetary compensation as bulk payment will not serve to bring food as long as going to the farm would serve.
8. That after the compensation money is finished that it will be the end of us as we cannot then produce more food, nor shall we have money to purchase from the market.
9. That when the Adapalm approached us about acquiring our land we did make it clear that we have no alternative land to plant our food crops.
10. That the respondent’s officials know the farmland in dispute for they have marked it out.
11. That we did in 1986 brief a lawyer to write to the respondent and make our stand clear. A copy of that letter is exhibited and marked Exhibit ‘A’.
12. That when the Commissioner for Lands and Survey visited us on 1st day of August 1986, we made our stand clear in our welcome address which is herewith exhibited and marked Exhibit.
13. That we were later forced to go through an enumeration of our crop on the land for purposes of compensation. But while participating in the enumeration we made it abundantly clear we only agreed to participate in case our plea to prevent the take-over failed.
14. That my community has not received any compensation.

The defendant/respondent in response filed a counter-affidavit. The following paragraphs appear quite relevant.

5.That paragraph 5 of the affidavit in support of motion is not true. The land in dispute is not the only farm land without big trees owned by the plaintiff/applicants as they have other farm lands.

6. That paragraphs 6 and 7 of the affidavit in support of motion are not correct. The plaintiffs/applicants would not be exposed to starvation as they have other farm lands with economic crops and trees planted on them.
7. That paragraph 8 of the affidavit in support of motion is not correct as the plaintiffs/applicants would be able to produce more food with the other farm lands they have.
8. That by the REVOCATION OF RIGHTS OF OCCUPANCY ORDER 1986, IMO STATE LEGAL NOTICE NO. 12 OF 1988, the Military Governor of Imo State of Nigeria COMMANDER AMADI IKWECHEGH revoked all rights to land over the Alaoru Obuozu land of the plaintiffs/applicants. The said REVOCATION OF RIGHTS ORDER 1986 is hereto exhibited and marked as EXHIBIT ‘A’.
9. That the Alaoru Obuozu land of the plaintiffs/applicants is required by the Military Governor of Imo State of Nigeria generally and in particular for the establishment of ADAPALM OILPALM PROJECT, Ukwa Local Government Area.
10. That paragraph 9 of the affidavit in support of motion is not correct as the establishment of ADAPALM OIL PALM PROJECT would generate employment opportunities for the plaintiffs/applicants and the income thus derived from the said project will further enhance the preservation of lives of the plaintiffs/applicants.
11. That paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the affidavit in support of motion are not true. The plaintiffs/applicants have alternative lands to plant their food crops.
12. That paragraphs 13 and 14 of the affidavit in support of motion are not correctly stated. The plaintiffs/applicants have willingly enumerated their food crops on the said land for the purposes of compensation.
13. That the defendant/respondent has already cleared the said land for the establishment of ADAPALM OILPALM PROJECT Ukwa Local Government Area and work is in progress at the site.

In a considered ruling dated 15/11/88 the learned trial judge Chianakwalam J. dismissed the application when he concluded thus –

There is no merit in the application by the plaintiffs for an order for interim injunction at this stage. The plaintiffs will be fully compensated by way of damages should their claim on trespass succeed after the substantive suit must have been heard on the merits, if necessary. For now, the application fails and is hereby dismissed.