Mr. Patrick Ordia & Anor V. The Governor of Delta State & Ors (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ZAINAB ADAMU BULKACHUWA, J.C.A.

By an originating summons filed on the 17/8/2000 before the High Court No.3 Effurum, the appellants as plaintiffs claimed against the respondents/defendants as follows:-

(i) Whether as per the Supreme Court judgment in Suit No. SC/220/1992 ANTHONY IDESOH & ORS. Vs. CHIEF PAUL ORDIA & ORS, the plaintiffs herein who are the personal representatives of the Late Chief Paul Ordia, are the DEEMED HOLDER of the statutory right of occupancy in respect of all that piece or parcel of land lying, being and situate at along Udu Road, Koloholo village, Enerhen Effurun covered by the Supreme Court judgment aforesaid the litigation plan filed thereto.

(ii) If the answer to (i) above is in the affirmative, whether the Defendants can validly issue or grant to private individuals for their own private purposes certificate of occupancy in respect of portions of land comprising the entire lands.

Whether the Defendants can or validly do so without a revocation of the rights or the Plaintiffs as Deemed Holders of statutory right of occupancy over same.

(iii) Whether the Defendants or their predecessors in office validly acquired title in the lands aforesaid under any law in force at all material times or whether they could have acquired any valid title there under in view of the Supreme Court judgment.

(iv) Whether (if there is any purported compulsory acquisition of the lands which is denied) the Defendants or their predecessors in office have lost all rights to the lands by reason of putting same for non-public use or purposes.

WHEREFORE the Plaintiffs claim against the Defendants:-

(a) The sum of N200 Million from the Defendants for trespass in that the Defendants without any lawful claim broke, close and entered into the Plaintiffs land in Plaintiffs’ exclusive possession at along Udu Road, Koloholo I village Enerhen Effurun commencing from 1997 and put private tenants/squatters on the lands for private purposes upon which rents are collected by the Defendants, and proceed aimlessly and heedlessly to issue certificate of occupancy to them.

(b) A DECLARATION that the Defendants or their predecessors in office cannot validly grant certificate of occupancy in respect of the aforesaid lands to any other persons other than the Plaintiffs.

(c) An order of court commanding the Defendants to surrender in possession of the said lands to the Plaintiffs.

(d) Injunction perpetual restraining the Defendants from further committing trespass in whatever form or manner on the said Plaintiffs’ land.

After filing a counter-affidavit to the originating summons, the Defendants yet filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection challenging the competence of the action as instituted by the plaintiffs before the lower court. The grounds being that the matter being contentious ought not to have been commenced by way of originating summons, and that the action having been commenced 3 months after the cause of action arose is statute barred.

The Preliminary Objection was heard by the lower court and upheld in a considered ruling delivered by the lower court on 8/7/2004 and the originating summons dismissed on the grounds that the action is statute barred. Being dissatisfied the Plaintiffs as appellants have now appealed to this court on four grounds of appeal.