By Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN
ALABRA V MIN FCT AND THE PAINS OF LAND OWNERS (1)
By Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN
INTRODUCTION
Land has more or less become gold in many parts of Nigeria. Perhaps due to lack of concrete and enduring government policy on housing, many developers prey on hapless home seekers to take undue advantage of them. In many instances, joint venture agreements are hastily executed with land owners under the guise of estate development but in truth the motive is to grab their land. We can verily excuse private developers as those motivated by greed for profit. What can we say of the government, created to protect the people but is robbing them blind, daily? How does a government set out to deprive the people of their ancestral heritage and identity in the name of compulsory land acquisition? There exists in virtually all parts of Nigeria oppressive legislation that deprive the people of the use and management of their land. These laws take away the proprietary interest in land from the land owners and transfer title and all interests in land to the government. Since the introduction of the Land Use Act by the then military government of General Olusegun Obasanjo (Retd.), many communities have lost their identity to the rapacious policy of compulsory acquisition. It is totally ungodly in my view, for people to suffer to create and develop settlements over the years and suddenly be rendered homeless by fiat. And as if knowing the evil of such policy, the Land Use Act has been inserted into the Constitution to shield it from any amendment or repeal. Whereas I may agree that there is need for planning in the management of land, especially where it is needed for development, there must be some form of inclusivity when it comes to compulsory acquisition so as to give a sense of belonging to the people, who form the basis of governance. People should not learn about the acquisition of ancestral homes through mere publication in official gazette, newspaper advertorials or mobilization of caterpillars for demolition. If the legitimacy of every government is derived from the people as eloquently stated in the Constitution, then the takeover of land by the government must follow a transparent process of consultation, dialogue and consensus with the land owners. It is painful to once own land and suddenly lose all traces to such inheritance. You walk around everyday seeing massive developments going on around your land and there is nothing to show that you ever owned it, turning land owners to unwilling victims in their own country. Permit me to share with you the unfortunate fate of some indigenous people of the Federal Capital Territory.
THE FACTS OF THE CASE
The facts of the case are as stated in the decision of the Supreme Court reported as Alabrah v Min F.C.T. (2026) 4 NWLR (Pt.2033)113. According to the appellants, they were the original inhabitants of Anguwan-Iya and Anguwan-Audu villages of Toge Community,where they were living as traditional rural settlers with agriculture as their major occupation prior to the creation of the Federal CapitalTerritory in 1976. They claimed that they continued to live in the community until 14th May 2012 when the respondents demolished their houses, household properties, farm products, household revered traditional and historical artefacts and ornaments. They claimed that about 209 houses were demolished out of which about 80% were built before the creation of the Federal Capital Territory and have been continually renovated. Further, that the demolition of their houses was illegal and unlawful as the same deprived them of their right to own and reside in their ancestral homes without due notice and compensation, and that their constitutional right enshrined in the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) was breached. They further contended that they suffered huge damages as a result of the illegal demolition for which they were entitled to be compensated by the respondents who were yet to compensate them despite their written application for compensation as required by the Federal Capital Territory Act. In the circumstances, the appellants instituted an action at the Federal Capital Territory High Court and claimed the following reliefs:
“a. A declaration that the demolition of Angwan-Iyaand Angwan-Audu Villages of Toge Community by the defendants on or about the 14/5/12 is illegal, unlawful and a deprivation of the plaintiffs right to own and reside in their ancestral home having not been compensated and or resettled by the defendants.
b. A declaration that the wanton destruction of the plaintiff’s movable and household properties inclusive of their farm produces by the defendants is illegal and unlawful.
c. Order directing the defendants to effect immediate payment of compensation and resettlement of the plaintiffs in accordance with legally set and acceptable standards.
d. An order directing the defendants to effect immediate replacement of all moveable and household properties (inclusive of farm produces) destroyed by the defendants in the course of the wanton demolition of Angwan-Audu and Angwan-Iya villages of Toge, or;
e. N150,000,000.00 (One Hundred and Fifty Million Naira) damages being the assessed value of all the moveable and household properties inclusive of farm produces destroyed by the defendants in Angwan-Iyae and Angwan-Audu villages of Toge.
f. N305, 000,000.00 (Three Hundred and Five Million Naira) damages being the value of 209 houses destroyed by the defendants in Angwan-Iya and Angwan-Audu villages of Toge Community, Abuja; or,
g. An order directing the defendants to effect immediate reconstruction of the 209 housing units destroyed by the defendants in Angwan-Iya and Angwan-Audu of Toge Community) Abuja.
h. A perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, privies, or any person (s) claiming through them, from trespassing, claiming, developing and or interfering with the land constituted in the plaintiffs’ place of abode, that is; Angwan-Iya and Angwan-Audu of Toge Community, until the plaintiffs are fully compensated and resettled.
i. N500,000,000.00 general damages for unlawful and illegal invasion, demolition and destruction of plaintiffs’ houses, moveable and household properties, artefacts, historical and traditional ornaments and heritage as well as the associated trauma to which the plaintiffs were subjected to by the unlawful acts of the defendants.”
The appellants called 2 witnesses and tendered several documents in proof of their case. On their part, the respondents did not call any evidence but maintained that by virtue of the Federal Capital Territory Act 1976, all land within the Federal Capital Territory became vested in the Federal Government of Nigeria and that any person who claims any right or interest in any land comprised in the Federal Capital Territory shall submit, in writing, particulars of his claim to the Executive Secretary of the Federal Capital Territory on or before the expiration of a period of twelve months from the date of the commencement of the Order made under section 2 of the Federal Capital Territory Act 1976, and that the appellants failed to comply with the provisions. At the conclusion of hearing, the trial court, by its judgment delivered on the 11th of December, 2014 found in favour of the appellants and held that there was no evidence in court in proof of the fact that the President published an Order in a gazette in compliance with section 2 of the Federal Capital Territory Act to commence the twelve months period within which compensation could be applied for. The trial court awarded the appellants the sum of N500,000,000.00 (Five Hundred Million Naira) as damages for the demolition. Aggrieved by the decision, the respondents approached the Court of Appeal, wherein the court set aside the judgment of the trial court holding that the action of the appellants was statute barred. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court which dismissed the appeal.
JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT
The Determination of Whether Action Statute-Barred:
The question as to whether or not an action is statute-barred is dependent on the nature of the action, and the relevant provisions of the statute of limitation. It touches on the jurisdiction of the court. The jurisdiction of the court is determined by the plaintiff’s claim as endorsed on the writ of summons and elaborated in the statement of claim. A cause of action is said to be statute-barred if, in respect of it, proceedings cannot be brought because the period laid down by the Limitation Act or Law has elapsed.
The Effect Where Action Statute-Barred:
When an action is statute-barred, the plaintiff who might have had a cause of action loses the right to enforce the cause of action by judicial process because the period of limitation had elapsed. An action commenced after the expiration of the statutory period within which an action must be brought is not maintainable. In other words, when a statute of limitation prescribes a period within which an action must be initiated, legal proceedings cannot be properly and validly instituted after the expiration of the prescribed period. Any such action instituted must be struck out as not being properly instituted before the court. In the instant case, the right of the appellants to commence an action against the respondents for compensation was extinguished by operation of the law – that is, section 6(3) and of the Federal Capital Territory Act 1976 – having not provided any evidence that they indeed wrote an application for compensation within the 12 months period stipulated by the Act. In the circumstances, the trial court was neither competent nor conferred with any jurisdiction to have entertained the appellants’ claims against the respondents since the action was statute-barred. The Court of Appeal was therefore right to have set aside the judgment of the trial court and in holding that the maker of the Act did not intend the issue of compensation to linger ad infinitum.
Dear Readers, Good and credible news reportage is tedious task and requires huge finances.
We are soliciting your Noble support for as low as N1,000 your support would go a long way in assisting us to continue to guarantee our readers quality news.
Bank transfers can be made to:
Account Name: Harvest and Commercial
Bank: Sterling Bank
Account Number: 0078627735