Captain Hon. Otiki & Anor V. Alh. Momoh Bajehson (2005)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

UMARU FARUK ABDULLAHI, J.C.A.

This appeal is against the judgment of Kolajo J. of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, delivered in 25th January, 2000. The plaintiff now Respondent sued the Appellants as Defendants before the trial Court.

In his amended statement of claim the Respondent claimed the following:-

(i) “A declaration that the purported revocation of the plaintiff’s land as contained in the New Nigerian Newspaper edition of 25th February, 1994, or letter of 10/4/97 and or any other document in that regard is illegal, unlawful, irrational, unconstitutional, null and void.

(ii) A declaration that the plaintiff is still the lawful owner or a person with sufficient interest in the piece of land situate, lying and being at plot 1295, Zone A6, Maitama District, Abuja, covered by a certificate of occupancy No:FCT/ABU/RW.349 and that the certificate is still subsisting.

ii(a) A declaration that the purported grant to the 1st defendant of the plot of land subject matter of this suit is irregular, unlawful, illegal, null and void and should be set aside.

(iii) A sum of N7,626,576.50 as damages against the defendant jointly and or severally made up as follows:-

(a) N4,017,910:00 being the value of money expended on the building/structure which the defendant pulled down.

(b) N2,608,766:50 being the difference between the sum of N13,359,581:00, the original estimate/cost of the building which the plaintiff desires to erect on the land in dispute and the amount of N15,968,347:50, which will now cost the plaintiff to put up the same building.

(c) A sum of N1,000,000.00 as general damages for trespass committed by the 1st defendant by himself, his agents, privies or assigns on the land in dispute.”

Alterative to Relief (ii):

(iv) “The sum of N4 million representing the current market value of Land at Maitama, Abuja.

(v) Injunction restraining the defendants jointly, and severally by themselves, their agents, servants, privies assigns or anybody claiming through or by them howsoever called from disturbing or further disturbing the plaintiff or any of his authorized agents from enjoyment of the land in dispute.

(vi) Such further or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this ease, including an order for payment by the defendants to the plaintiff of any difference between N2,608,766:50 damages claimed in paragraph 17 iii above or any increase thereafter in the cost of building mentioned thereof”.