Land dispute: Ex-UNIZIK VC, Deputy Speaker, others lose 21-year-old case

Praise Chinecherem

Scores of occupants of Think Home Estate, Government Reserved Area, Awka, Anambra State were on Saturday rendered homeless following demolition of their buildings said to be erected without approval.

The victims who are currently counting their losses, reportedly put up the structures with disregard to court order over 21-year old land dispute.

The lingering land dispute was between former Vice Chancellor of Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Prof. Ilochi Okafor, his Wife Egosonwa Okafor, Deputy speaker, State House of Assembly, Hon Pascal Agbodike, former House of Assembly member, late Val Elosiuba, who represented Idemili North 1 State constituency, State government and Chief Jude Osude and his company Bekilo Farms Ltd.

The houses, now under demolition include that of the Deputy speaker, and over 30 others who bought the property from land speculators, ignoring court order to vacate the properties on the instructions of their masters.

In the judgement pasted on walls of buildings in the Estate, the Appealate court judgement delivered on a date marked 17/12/2014 in favour of Chief Osude and Bekilo Farms Ltd against the family of former Vice Chancellor Prof. Ilochi Okafor and his cohort, ordered Chief Osude and Bekilo Farms Ltd., to recover their property from the land grabbers.

The judgement averred that the land grabbers connived with some unscrupulous individuals in the Anambra state ministry of lands using their position to disposes rightful land owners  of their properties without valid allocation papers or certificate of occupancy.

The judgment delivered by Justice Fredrick Oziakpono was also ignored by Anambra state government, which was a party in the case.

The crux of the matter was that the judgment of a lower court in suit No: A/15/2009 delivered on the 17-12-2014 in favour of  the wife of the vice Chancellor in error was subsequently set aside and the cost of N200,000 awarded against the 1st respondent, Lady Egosonwa Okafor, wife of former UNIZIK VC in favour of the appellants, Chief Osude and his company.

The appeal judgement was therefore consolidated in Appeal Nos.CA/AW/192/2018; Hon. Commissioner for Lands, Survey and Urban Planning, Anambra state and 1. Lady Egosonwa Okafor; VS Chief Jude Osude and  Bekilo  Poultry and Agricultural Farms (WA) Ltd., with understanding extracted from learned counsels in the two appeals.

Thus Appeal Nos:CA/AW/485/2017 was decided  and the decision in the said case was binding on all the parties in the two appeals.

This became necessary when learned counsel to the parties in both appeals told the court that the appeals had been consolidated by the previous panel of Court of Appeal, but could not draw attention to any such order made or any enrolled orders of the court for the purpose.

Learned counsel therefore agreed that the parties shall be bound by the judgment given in Appeal  NO:CA/AW/485/2017 since the parties and subject matter are same in both appeals.

The facts of this appeal, which are not in dispute is that by writ of summons, Chief Osude had instituted an action against Lady Okafor originally at the High Court, Awka division, which Bekilo Poultry Farms and Hon. Commissioner for Lands, Survey and Urban Planning were respectively joined as parties to the suit.

The case, according to Lady Okafor, is that a parcel of land in dispute originally belonged  to Jonathan Okoli family of Umudioka village, Awka. Subsequently, according to Lady Okafor, the Anambra state government constituted the said land of Jonathan Okoli family into Think Home Estate, GRA, Awka.

In 2002, on the strength of the application for compensatory plots by the said family, the Anambra state government approved the release of some plots of land to the said Jonathan Okoli family.

Upon the release of these plots of land by the said government of Anambra state, the land owners partitioned the released plots and created the same as a private Estate consisting of 28 plots in the newly created estate known as “Ifunanya Pocket Estate”, GRA, Awka.

The said Jonathan Okoli family subsequently, according to Lady Okafor, donated a Power of Attorney to Hon. Val Elosiuba to manage the said plots of land for them.

Lady Okafor claimed  she purchased, through the said Hon. Val Elosiuba, plots NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10 and 12 in the said “Ifunanya Pocket Estate” in 2002.

On the strength of the purchase, Lady Okafor said that she went into possession of the said plots of land and has some developments thereon.

The case of Chief Osude and his company on the other hand is that on application, his company was allocated  the parcel of land in dispute, known as Plots C/1 Think Home Estate, Awka.

The said Plot C/1 Think Home Estate, Awka was allocated to his company as alternative plot for its land acquired by the Anambra state government.

On being allocated the said parcel of land, his company applied to the Anambra state government to be issued with Building Certificate of Occupancy, which was accordingly issued to his company.

On being availed of all the necessary and relevant documents in the respect of the said C/1 Think Home Estste, Awka, his company went into effective possession of the same, performing various acts on the same land. 

But sometime in 2004, some persons including the husband of Lady Okafor, Prof. Ilochi Okafor, SAN, trespassed and started disturbing the peaceful occupation of the said land by his company.

His company, Bekilo Poultry Farms took a civil option by suing the trespassers in court in Suit NO: A/108/2004. Lady Okafor’s husband, who was a party to the said suit at the time, later dissociated himself from the subject matter in the statement of defense he filed making his company to withdraw from the case.

Eventually, judgment was delivered in Suit NO: A/108/2004 on the 13-6-2007 to the knowledge of his company over the parcel of land in dispute.

As that was not enough in 2008, some persons sued his company and moved the High Court of Anambra state to be dissociated from the judgment delivered in Suit NO: A/108/2004. The suit against his company was dismissed and the judgment in the suit No: A/108/2004 adjudged to have universal effect.

The Anambra state government, which allocated or granted the land in dispute to his company and which subsequently, issued  his company a Certificate of Occupancy over the said land was said not to have revoked the said Certificate of Occupancy issued or granted to his company.

What however, tends to be missing or considered an ominous gap in the story of Lady Okafor as far as the question of the ownership of the parcel of the land is concerned, is that she did not state or did not testify or lead evidence to show what became of the titles or rights of ownership of the previous allottee to the parcels of the land to whom the state has issued Certificate of Occupancy.  

Did the titles of the previous allottee extinguished before allocation of same as compensatory plots to the Jonathan Okoli family?

It is important to note that the position of Chief Osude and his company on the question of whether their plot C/1 was revoked or not is that the Anambra state government who issued the said Certificate of Occupancy, never revoked same and that if at all any such revocation ever took place, that it was never brought to their notice as required by law.

This piece of evidence was never challenged and this therefore, leads this Court to the question of whether there was indeed a valid revocation of Chief Osude and his company’s right on the parcel of the land in dispute in view of the misleading and misguided findings of the Court below, which in essence gives the erroneous impression that the mere publication of revocation in newspaper, without more is capable of fulfilling the requirements of the law on revocation of a Certificate of Occupancy.

The Court of Appeal is therefore of the firm view that the Court below, by so doing failed woefully and lamentably to make a valid finding of the fact that is in tandem with extant laws and therefore, deserves to have the said finding jettisoned; set aside and it is hereby set aside.

The  Appellate justice said the settled position of the law is that a Notice, simpliciter merely constitutes an intention on the part of the government to acquire or revoke the interests in the land, which does not vest until the Notices of acquisition is served on the owners under Section 28 and 44  of the said  Land Use Act, Cap L 5 of the laws of Federation of Nigeria 2004.

It is, therefore, conclusive that the right or interest of a person in a piece of land is extinguished once a Notice signed by a public officer authorized by the Governor in that behalf is served on the holder of a right of Occupancy.

On the question of whether Lady Okafor proved special damages, Chief Osude and his company counsel contended that throughout the entire gamut of Lady Okafor’s pleadings there is nowhere she  pleaded the rate of inflation in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008.

He further contended that no document whatsoever, emanated from government financial agencies showing the rate of inflation from 2003-2008 upon which Lady Okafor based her claims for special damages and in respect of which the Court below made its awards.

Against the backdrop of the submission of the counsel for Chief Osude and his company that Lady Okafor did not prove her special damages claimed as she failed to avail them of the facts and documents, which led to the conclusion summed and reached, Lady Okafor obviously in answers, had in paragraph 23 of her further amended statement of claim pleaded that she had constructed the fence in 2003 at a cost of N1, 304, 070.00 and that with inflation, the cost of replacing the fence as at the time has obviously spiraled upwards, thus had decided to claim the sum of N3, 090, 638.00.

The  Appealate justice continued that the settled position of the law is that special damages are a species of damages, which the law will neither infer nor speculate upon. They are by their nature flow from acts, which do not follow in the ordinary course of events, but exceptional in their character and therefore must be claimed specially and proved strictly.

It is for this reason that for a claim in the nature of special damages to succeed, it must be proved strictly and the Court is not entitled to make its own estimation on such a claim.

Based on the foregoing, it is glaring that special damages will only be awarded if strictly proved and for this Lady Okafor in this case ought to have gone beyond hiding behind inflation and without having to make the Court below take its decision on the issue based on speculating on the rate of inflation between 2003 and 2008.

Against the backdrop of forgoing, this Court hereby finds and holds that the special damages and general damages lumped together and awarded by the Court below were done in error. Consequently, the award of damages  was set aside.

In the final analysis, this Appeal succeeds to the hilt and it is accordingly allowed. 

The judgment of the Court below, in Suit NO: A/15/2009 delivered on the 17-12-2014 is hereby set aside. There shall be cost of N200, 000.00 against Lady Okafor in favour of Chief Osude and his company.