His Highness Isaac Boyi Umukoro & Ors V. Nigerian Ports Authority & Anor. (1997)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

L. KUTIGI, J.S.C.

In the High Court of Justice, Sapele, the plaintiffs claims as stated in paras. 22 & 23 of their Statement of Claim (which superceded the Writ of Summons) read thus:-

“22. Whereof the plaintiffs claim against the defendants jointly and severally is for the sum of N301,658.90 (Three hundred and One thousand, six hundred and fifty-eight naira, ninety kobo) being the sum of Compensation agreed, ascertained and certified due and payable to the plaintiffs by the defendants for their Raffia Palms and economic trees of the plaintiffs destroyed or damaged at Umunu Island by the defendants and or their agents

23. The plaintiffs also claim interest at 14% hereof from the date of this writ until payment or judgment.”

Pleadings were ordered, filed and exchanged. The defendants clearly denied liability. The 1st defendant in addition pleaded in paras. 3 & 10 of its Amended Statement of Defence that-

“3. The defendant denies paragraphs 7 & 8 of the Statement of Claim.The defendant will contend at the trial that if Amunu Island existed, it was not part of land acquired by the defendant for the purpose of building Sapele Port Complex.The defendant shall rely on the acquisition notice and all plans and diagrams in respect of the land at the trial.

(a) The defendant only authorised 2nd defendant to carry out dredging and reclamation of Sapele Port Complex within the land acquired by the defendant.

(b) The defendant did not authorise the 2nd defendant to destroy any crop outside the area of acquisition. If there was any destruction of crops by the 2nd defendant, the 1st defendant is not liable in that it was not authorised.

(c) If any representative of the defendant and the Ministry of Agriculture made any enumeration of crops on the plaintiffs land, it was done in ignorance and the defendant is not liable in that the said land is not within the area of acquisition and did not contract or authorise any person to destroy crops in the said land. All compensation in respect of the said acquisition have been paid by the defendant.

10. The defendant shall contend at the trial that the plaintiffs are not competent to sue in this case in that he has not given the required notice to the defendant before commencing this action.The defendant shall rely on section 97 of Ports Act Cap. 155 Laws of Federation of Nigeria and shall further contend that the action is statute barred.

The defendant shall contend at the trial that the case be dismissed in that the suit is speculative,frivolous and abuse of legal processes,”

The 2nd defendant also pleaded in paras. 4, 5 & 6 of its Amended Statement of Defence as follows:-

“4. In further answer to paragraphs 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the statement of claim the 2nd defendant states that the 2nd defendant was put in vacant possession of the site or parcel of land on which the Port is now situate by the 1st defendant in accordance with terms of agreement with the 1st defendant in July 1980.

5. The 2nd defendant states that all its construction activities were confined to the land acquired by the Federal Government for the building of the Sapele Ports Complex and to no other piece or parcel of land.
6. The 2nd defendant states further in answer to paragraphs 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 that it did not destroy any crop outside the parcel of land acquired by the 1st defendant for Sapele Port construction but in fact restricted its dredging and reclamation to the pm1 of the land acquired aforesaid and handed over to the 2nd defendant.”

The facts are briefly that between 1980 and 1981 the 1st defendant acquired a large tract of land for the purpose of designing, constructing and building of a new Sapele Port Complex. The plaintiffs claimed that UMUNU ISLAND at Ogharefe was part of the land acquired by the 1st defendant. They also claimed that during the construction work by the 2nd defendant, their raffia palms and their economic crops on the island were damaged or destroyed. That when they complained to the defendants they were advised to put up claims for compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Ports Act. The plaintiffs said they complied; and that after an enumeration exercise was carried out by the officials of the Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources Bendel State, a schedule of payment containing 85 names was prepared and forwarded to the 1st defendant. The total amount claimed and payable was N301,658.90.

The 1st defendants on the other hand said Umuna Island was not part of the land acquired and for which compensation had been paid long before construction work started, nor did the island form part of the new port complex. When the defendants failed to pay up, the plaintiffs then filed this action in court on 27th November, 1984 claiming as above.

At the trial, five witnesses testified for the plaintiffs while one witness each testified on behalf of the two defendants. In a reserved judgment the learned trial Judge after reviewing the evidence adduced before him. dismissed the plaintiffs claims when he concluded on page 84 of the record thus: