Chief Vincent Obianodo V. Chief (Mrs.) Florence Okharedia & Anor (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

SIDI DAUDA BAGE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of Honourable Justice O. A. Adefope-Okojie of the Lagos State High Court sitting at Ikeja delivered on the 20th of February, 2001 in Suit No. ID/1084/92, wherein the lower Court granted injunction and declaratory reliefs in favour of the 1st Respondent against both the Appellant and the 2nd Respondent (FHA).

The 1st Respondent who was (the Plaintiff at the lower Court) filed her amended statement claim dated 10th day of March, 1994 and claimed as follows:

1) The Plaintiff who is retired from service and presently operates transport/haulage business at the Nigerian Breweries Iganmu, Lagos, is the allottee of and resident in Plot 331, C1 Close, 3rd Avenue, Festival Town, Lagos with his family and dependants.

2) The 1st Defendant is resident in and/or the allottee of Plot 315, C1 Close 3rd Avenue, Festival Town, Lagos.

3) The 3rd Defendant is a body corporate set up under Decree 40 of 1973 and charged with amongst other duties selling, letting, leasing or otherwise dealing with movable and unmovable property in execution of

government housing programme.

4) The Plaintiff avers that on or about 3rd March, 1982 by letter of even date, pursuant to his earlier application, he was allotted a plot of land, more particularly described as Plot 330, B1 Close, 3rd Avenue, Festival Town, Lagos by the 2nd Defendant. The Plaintiff shall rely on the 2nd Defendant’s letters, dated 3rd March, 1982 and 22nd March, 1982 with regard to the offer at trial.

5) The Plaintiff avers further that the exact location of the aforesaid plot is as set out in the 2nd Defendant’s layout survey plan for the area executed by Mrs. Olatunde Kassim dated 18th October, 1982. The Plaintiff shall rely on the said plan and the 2nd Defendant is hereby put on notice to produce it at trial.

6) The Plaintiff avers that when he wanted to start construction works on the land, he discovered that it would be impracticable to put a date on B1 Close, which was intend to be the front of his plot, as the peculiar location of the said plot made the space that could be used as a gate for himself, his family, cars and lorries used for his business too small and inconvenient for that purpose.

7) The Plaintiff avers

that this was coupled with the fact that the entrance on B1 Close was at the end of the close, and parking his lorries and cars that could not enter the compound outside the gate would have effectively blocked the area and greatly inconvenienced the adjoining houses on B1 Close.

8) The Plaintiff therefore applied to the 2nd Defendant for permission to build a wall fence with gates on C1 Close as against B1 Close in effect changing the front of his plot. This was approved by the 2nd Defendant who endorsed same on the Plaintiff’s composite site plan showing the proposed wall fence on 10th April, 1987, though this approval was stated to be revocable and valid for 24 months. The Plaintiffs composite site plan showing the proposed wall fence on 10th April, 1987, though, this approval as stated to be revocable and valid for 24 months.

The Plaintiff shall rely on the aforesaid endorsed plan at trial.