Frederick Obayagbona & Anor. V. D. Obazee & Anor (1972)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

Parties

1. FREDERICK OBAYAGBONA
   2. JOSEPH OSADOLOR(For themselves and on behalf of members of Plot Allotment Committee Ward 10/E Benin City) Appellant(s)

AND

1. D. OBAZEE
   2. FELIX IZEKOR(For themselves and on behalf of members of Plot Allotment Committee Ward 40/A, Benin City) Respondent(s)

G. S. SOWEMIMO, J.S.C. 

In the Suit B/62/67, the plaintiffs, who are the present Appellants instituted an action against the Defendants, the Respondents in this appeal, and the claims as set out in paragraph 23 of the Statement of Claim are:

(a) A declaration that the exercise of the functions of Plot Allotment Committee by the Defendants, Ward in respect of Allotments made by the plaintiffs before 1963, August, is contrary to the findings of the Local Government Adviser.

(b) An injunction restraining the Defendants and or their agents/servants from further exercise of the areas in dispute and further laying out the said area already allocated to people on the recommendation of Ward 10/E before 30th August, 1963.”

The case was heard by Irikefe, J., at the Benin High Court of the Mid-Western State and on Friday, 2nd of August, 1968 he gave judgment in the following terms:

“I would therefore pronounce in favour of the decision contained in the Local Government Adviser’s ruling Exhibit “Kl” and enter judgment for the plaintiffs against the defendants as claimed. I also make the following consequential orders:

(a) That in terms of Exhibit “K1”, the recommendations leading to the approvals contained in the customary grants, Exhibits D, E, F, G, H, J, L, L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, L6, L7, and L8 are deemed to have been made on 30th August, 1963 by the defendants.

(b) That the plaintiffs are hereby empowered to go back on the land in dispute with an officer of the Benin City Town Planning Authority, preferably the 5th plaintiffs’ witness, John Orobator, who should plot out the exact identity of all the approvals as at (a) above by means of and with the aid of Exhibit “Y”.

(c) That thereafter the plaintiff at their expense should get a licensed surveyor to translate the work done at (b) above into a countersigned survey plan to be filed in this court as permanent evidence of the location of the 15 approvals at (a) above within three months from the making of this order. The said plan should “show clearly the name of each grantee of land against the precise area approved for him.

(d) That the plaintiffs and their surveyor or other officials of the Benin City Town Planning Authority are not to be disturbed or interfered with in the course of their entry on the disputed land for the purpose of carrying out the order made herein.

(e) That such disturbance and or interference, if any, if deposed to by the plaintiffs or their agents will attract the usual sanctions.

(f) That Exhibits “W” to “W3” and any other grant shown to impinge upon or to relate to the same area of land as is taken up by the 15 approvals as at (a) above are hereby declared null, void and of no effect whatsoever.”\