ALH. ISIYAKU YAKUBU V. IMPRESIT BAKOLORI PLC & ORS.
(2010)LCN/3936(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Wednesday, the 7th day of July, 2010
CA/J/90/2003
RATIO
TITLE TO LAND: WHETHER WHERE A PARTY SATISFIES THE COURT AS TO HIS TITLE TO LAND IN DISPUTE, THE COURT NEED NOT INQUIRE INTO THE TITLE OF HIS PREDECESSOR-IN-TITLE
Where a party has satisfied the Court as to his title to land in dispute, the Court need not inquire into the title of his predecessor-in-title. The party does not need to prove the title of his vendors except where it has become an issue. Ajibulu Vs. Ajavi (2004) 11 NWLR Pt 885 Pg 458, Dosunmu Vs. Joto (1987) 4 NWLR Pt 65 pg 297. In Nasiru Vs. Abubakar (1997) 4 NWLR Pt. 497 Pg 32 the Court held that the act of vesting legal title in respect of a piece of land in a person is a matter of law to be deduced from the facts and evidence admitted. PER UZO NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A.
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: WHETHER A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS NORMALLY AN EVIDENCE OF EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION
A Certificate of Occupancy is normally the evidence of exclusive possession and the rights provided for in favour of the person in possession. Auta Vs. Ibe (2003) 13 NWLR Pt.837 Pg. 247. PER UZO NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A.
ACQUISITION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC PURPSOSE: CONDITIONS THAT MUST BE MET BEFORE A PERSON’S PROPERTY COULD BE ACQUIRED COMPULSORILY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE
The law provides that before, a person’s property could be acquired compulsorily for public purpose certain conditions must be met namely: (a) Notice of intention to do so must have been served upon him or the occupier or a persons interest or upon such persons as were entitled to sell or convey the land, by affixing same conspicuously on the property; (b) The notice must be by personal service or by being left at his last known place of abode or business; and (c) The notice served on him must be published once in the state gazette; and at least two national daily newspapers circulating in the state. Provost, LACOED Vs. Edun (2004) 7 NWLR Pt 870 Pg 476; A.G. Bendel State Vs. Adevan (1989) 4 NWLR Pt. 118 Pg 648. There are statutes which provides for the procedure for acquiring property by the Government. Government is expected to comply with those statutes and it must as a matter of law comply with those statutes which government has enacted. Therefore, where Government disobeys its own statutes by not complying with the laid down procedure for the acquisition of private property, it is the duty of the Courts to intervene against the Government and in favour of the private citizen. Provost, Lagos State College of Education Vs. Edun (supra). PER UZO NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A.
ACQUISTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE: WHETHER WHERE AN ACQUIRING AUTHORITY SEEKS TO ACQUIRE PRIVATE PROPERTY, BEFORE THE PRIVATE PROPERTY IS ACQUIRED, THE ACQUIRING AUTHORITY MUST GIVE NOTICE OF INTENTION TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY BEFORE PUBLISHING SAME IN THE GAZETTE
It is also trite that public acquisition of land for public purposes presupposes that the notice of acquisition should spell out the public purpose. Thus, where an acquiring authority compulsorily acquires private property, it is important that the particulars of the “public purpose” for which property is acquired are given. Provost, Lagos State College of Education Vs. Edun (supra). “Where an acquiring authority seeks to acquire private property, before the private property is acquired, the acquiring authority must give notice of intention to acquire the property before publishing same in the gazette’. In other words, the acquiring authority must give the necessary quit notice or acquisition notice to the person affected.” Provost, Lagos State College of Education Vs. Edun (supra). PER UZO NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
BODE RHODES-VIVOUR Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
UZO NDUKWE-ANYANWU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ABUBAKAR DATTI YAHAYA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
ALH. ISIYAKU YAKUBU – Appellant(s)
AND
1. IMPRESIT BAKOLORI PLC
2. MR. BARBIBIERI (SITE MANAGER)
3. MR. G. OGHIPPINTI, (PROJECT MANAGER
4. MR. R. COROLL (PLANT MANAGER)
5. KELELE NIG. LIMITED
6. ABUBAKAR AHMED (CHAIRMAN OF THE 5THDEFENDANT – Respondent(s)
UZO NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The Plaintiff/Appellant sued the Defendants/Respondents claiming that he was the owner of the land the subject matter of this appeal. The Appellant also claimed that sometime in April 1999 he noticed that the Respondents had entered into his land and dug it up. On enquiry he discovered that the Respondents were P.T.F. Contractors working on an irrigation scheme.
When he confronted the Respondents they invited him to a meeting and informed him that the Adamawa State Government was in the process of acquiring the land for irrigation which included his own land.
The Appellant unsuccessfully attempted to stop the Respondents hence the suit in the High Court which culminated in this appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Yola Adamawa State delivered on 10th April, 2001. The Plaintiff/Appellant dissatisfied with the judgment filed a notice and 2 Grounds of Appeal. The Appellant’s brief filed on 23rd June, 2003 was settled by J.O. Makinde Esq. In it he articulated 2 issues for determination namely:
(1) (Relates to ground 1 of the grounds of appeal). Whether the trial Judge was right in law when he refuse to grant relief Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the Plaintiff’s claim.
(2) (Relates to ground 2 of the ground of appeal).
(a) Whether the award of damages of N50,000.00 by the lower court was based on relevant principles and considerations.
(b) Whether the sum of N50,000.00 awarded by the lower court is not manifestly low and inadequate in the circumstances of the case.
Also filed on 16th March, 2005 is an Appellant’s Reply Brief pursuant to an order of Court granted on 15th August, 2005.
The 1st – 4th Respondents brief was settled by Tayo Jegede SAN and filed on 3rd August, 2004 but deemed properly filed and served on 22nd November, 2004.
In the 1st -4th Respondents’ brief, the learned counsel articulated 2 issues for determination namely:
(1) Whether given the facts of his case, the trial court was right in refusing to grant declaratory reliefs 1, 2 and 3 in plaintiffs claim.
(2) Whether damages of N50,000.00 awarded by trial court can be said to be inadequate given to state of pleadings and evidence.
The issues articulated by both parties are similar in material, particulars and I intend to utilize the issues as articulated by the Appellant.
ISSUE ONE
The learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the trial Judge erred in law when he refused to grant reliefs 1, 2 and 3 when it was duly proved.
The Appellant tendered his statutory Certificate of Occupancy Exhibit A. It is therefore unjustifiable and erroneous in law for the trial Judge to refuse to grant the Appellant the reliefs sought because the Respondents act of trespass is in progress.
The learned Appellant’s counsel submitted that the Respondents in their paragraphs 20 and 21 of their statement of defence averred that the State government had acquired the land, the subject matter of this appeal. The onus is therefore on the Respondents to prove that assertion. Counsel submitted that one of the requirements of Government acquisition of land is the requirement of giving notice to the land owner. Exhibits C, D and J attest to this fact that no notice was given. See A-G Bendel State & Ors. vs. Aideyan (1989) 4 NWLR, Ibadan Company Ltd. & 1 Or. vs. Nig. Ports Plc. & 8 Ors. (2000) 17 WRN Pg. 56.
Counsel argued that without the service of the notice of revocation on the holder of a Right of Occupancy sought to’ be revoked, the revocation is ineffectual. See A-G Lagos State vs. Sowande (1992) 8 NWLR Pt. 261 Pg 589, Olatunji vs. Military Governor Oyo State (1995) 5 NWLR Pt. 397 Pg 586, Prof. M.I. Jegede vs. Citicow Nig. Ltd. & 4 Ors. (2001) 3 WRN Pg.1, Nitel vs. Ogunbiyi (1992) 7 NWLR Pt. 255 Pg 343.
Counsel submitted further that all the oral information given to the Appellant as regards the government acquisition does not satisfy the requirement of law as to personal service of revocation or acquisition notice. Therefore one cannot say without documentary evidence to show same that the state had acquired the land.
On prayers 2 and 3, the Court ought to have granted them as the trial Judge found as a fact that the Defendants/Respondents had entered the Appellant’s land without his permission and that the Appellant was at all times m possession before the Respondents’ unlawful entry into the land. Counsel finally urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Appellant and grant the reliefs sought by the Appellant.
The learned counsel to the 1st – 4th Respondents agreed that the reliefs sought by the Appellant are declaratory in nature and submitted that ownership of the said land was not in issue. Also that the Appellant’s land lies within the area demarcated for the irrigation project. It is also submitted that an attempt was made to get the Appellant file his claims for consideration for payments of compensation for improvements, on the land.
Counsel submitted further that declaratory reliefs are not granted on admission of parties. Counsel argued that the Appellant did not lead credible evidence to entitle him to the declaratory reliefs sought. In furtherance of his argument counsel submitted that the Appellant’s evidence was weak. Appellant also relied on the non-traverse of the Respondents’ pleadings and admission of the Respondents. Counsel contended that the Appellant cannot rely on the weakness of the Respondents case.
Counsel submitted that in a claim for declaration, plaintiff must trace his root of title to the original owner. Lawson vs. Ajibutu (1997) 6 SCNJ Pg. 1. Counsel submitted that the Plaintiff/Appellant never proved his root of title and could have just sued only for trespass.
Counsel contended that the plaintiff/Appellant did not provide sufficient and satisfactory evidence to have entitled him to reliefs sought as a Court does not give an order in vain. ”
Counsel urged the court to resolve this issue against the Appellant.
The Appellant in this case claimed as follows from the trial Court.
(1) A declaration that the Plaintiff the bonafide owner, grantee and/or holder of the land covered by Certificate of Occupancy No. GS/2581 and therefore entitled to peaceful and quite enjoyment of the said property.
(2) To order the Defendants to vacate the Plaintiffs land situate along Jimeta Yola Road covered by Certificate of Occupancy No. GS/2581 and to refill the gutter or water canal dug and restore the beacons destroyed by the Defendants on the Plaintiffs land.
3) A perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant by themselves, their agent, privies, servants or howsoever from trespassing and/or committing any further act of trespass on the Plaintiff’s land covered by Certificate of Occupancy No. GS/2581 with an Area of 2.333 hectares situated along Jimeta Yola Road.
(4) The sum of Fifty Million Naira (N50,000,000.00) only being general damages against the Defendants jointly and severally for trespassing unto the plaintiff’s plot of land covered by Statutory Certificate of Occupancy No. GS/2581.
(5) Cost of this action.
(6) Further or better reliefs.
In proof of his title to land the Plaintiff/Appellant, averred and traced in paragraphs 8 – 19 of his statement of claim, the root of his title.
The defendants/Respondents did not contend the ownership of the land in dispute in his pleadings nor in oral evidence. The Plaintiff/Appellant successfully proved the ownership of the land as the Respondents did not contest it with him.
Where a party has satisfied the Court as to his title to land in dispute, the Court need not inquire into the title of his predecessor-in-title. The party does not need to prove the title of his vendors except where it has become an issue. Ajibulu Vs. Ajavi (2004) 11 NWLR Pt 885 Pg 458, Dosunmu Vs. Joto (1987) 4 NWLR Pt 65 pg 297.
In Nasiru Vs. Abubakar (1997) 4 NWLR Pt. 497 Pg 32 the Court held that the act of vesting legal title in respect of a piece of land in a person is a matter of law to be deduced from the facts and evidence admitted.
In this case the Plaintiff/Appellant proved his title by tracing to the vendor. Also his successful registration of the document of title in the Local Government where he obtained a Customary Right of Occupancy No. YLG/001423 on 6th February, 2008. The Songola State Government subsequently issued the Plaintiff/Appellant a Certificate of Occupancy No. GS/2581 dated 13th August, 2008.
These facts were not contested by the Defendants/Respondents so it will be taken that facts admitted need minimal proof.
A Certificate of Occupancy is normally the evidence of exclusive possession and the rights provided for in favour of the person in possession. Auta Vs. Ibe (2003) 13 NWLR Pt.837 Pg. 247. The Respondents claimed in their statement of defence paragraphs 20 and 21-
(20) The Defendants aver that because of the benefit which the state and the entire people or the state would derive from the project the State Government agreed to acquire nil the lands that falls within the area of the project. The letter dated the 8/2/99 written for the purpose of acquiring the affected land is hereby attached to this affidavit.
(21) The Defendants aver that consequently a site board meeting was held and approved the acquiring of all the lands affected by the project. The minutes of the site board committee dated the 11/2/99.’
These paragraphs and Exhibits C, D, and J attest to the fact that there has not been any revocation, acquisition or compensation by government.
The law provides that before, a person’s property could be acquired compulsorily for public purpose certain conditions must be met namely:
(a) Notice of intention to do so must have been served upon him or the occupier or a persons interest or upon such persons as were entitled to sell or convey the land, by affixing same conspicuously on the property;
(b) The notice must be by personal service or by being left at his last known place of abode or business; and
(c) The notice served on him must be published once in the state gazette; and at least two national daily newspapers circulating in the state.
Provost, LACOED Vs. Edun (2004) 7 NWLR Pt 870 Pg 476; A.G. Bendel State Vs. Adevan (1989) 4 NWLR Pt. 118 Pg 648.
There are statutes which provides for the procedure for acquiring property by the Government. Government is expected to comply with those statutes and it must as a matter of law comply with those statutes which government has enacted. Therefore, where Government disobeys its own statutes by not complying with the laid down procedure for the acquisition of private property, it is the duty of the Courts to intervene against the Government and in favour of the private citizen. Provost, Lagos State College of Education Vs. Edun (supra).
It is also trite that public acquisition of land for public purposes presupposes that the notice of acquisition should spell out the public purpose. Thus, where an acquiring authority compulsorily acquires private property, it is important that the particulars of the “public purpose” for which property is acquired are given. Provost, Lagos State College of Education Vs. Edun (supra).
“Where an acquiring authority seeks to acquire private property, before the private property is acquired, the acquiring authority must give notice of intention to acquire the property before publishing same in the gazette’. In other words, the acquiring authority must give the necessary quit notice or acquisition notice to the person affected.”
Provost, Lagos State College of Education Vs. Edun (supra).
In the instant case, the Respondents claimed that Government was aware of the irrigation project and was in the process of acquiring the land the subject matter of this appeal. However, the Respondents have the onus of proving that indeed Government has acquired the said land for whatever purpose. It is not enough to have the intention of acquiring the land. The Law has set out the procedure for a valid revocation, and acquisition.
A party in a land dispute who asserts that land was acquired by the Government must not only prove that the land was acquired pursuant to Section 28(1) and (2) of the Land Use Act, but also that subsection (6) and (7) of the Section and Section 44 were duly complied with. Baba-Iya Vs. Sikeli (2006) 3 NWLR Pt. 968 Pg. 508.
It should be noted also that Government cannot acquire land from an individual without adequate compensation. N.H.R.I. Vs Ayoade (1997) 11 NWLR Pt. 530 Pg 541, Kukoyi Vs. Aina (1999) 10 NWLR Pt. 624 Pg 633.
‘The Appellant’s learned counsel in his submission stated emphatically that his land, the subject matter of this appeal was never acquired by government. This is so because no notice was served on him personally. Furthermore the onus is on the Respondents to prove such acquisition by Government which they have not succeeded in doing.
In the absence of a formal notice served personally on the Appellant, there cannot be a legal acquisition of the land the subject matter of this appeal. In this case Government has failed to comply with the laid down procedure for acquisition of private property. It is the duty of the Court to intervene against the Government and in favour of the Appellant. However in this case, the Appellant did not sue the Government of Adamawa State.
Before, the issue as to whether the land in dispute has been properly acquired by a State Government and whether the notice of acquisition and revocation “of grant was properly served by the Government can be effectively adjudicated upon and determined by the trial Court, it is imperative to join the State Government concerned in the suit. Elegushi Vs Oseni (2005) 14 NWLR Pt 946 Pg.348, Mobil Oil (Nig.) Ltd. vs. Nabsons Ltd. (1995) 7 NWLR Pt.407 Pg. 254.
It is clear from the pleadings, the evidence of witnesses and the Exhibits tendered that Government has not acquired the Appellant’s land. The Respondents have not proved that Government had acquired the said land. The Respondents have not also denied the fact that they had made an unauthorized entry into the land of the Appellant.
Where there is a claim for trespass coupled with injunction it is incumbent on the trial Court to consider the question of title to the land. See Howard Int. Schools Ltd Vs. Minna Project. Ventures Ltd. No. 1 (2005) 1 NWLR Pt. 908 Pg. 552. this the trial Court has done.
In a claim for damages for trespass and an injunction to restrain further trespass, once there is a finding of trespass, the claims for damages and injunction must be awarded by the Court. Ogunyombo Vs. Ookoya (2002) 16 NWLR Pt. 793 Pa 224.
The Appellant has proved his title to the land the subject matter of this appeal and therefore entitled to the reliefs claimed. This issue is therefore resolved for the Appellant.
ISSUE TWO
The Appellant in this issue submitted that the award of N50,000.00 was low and inadequate and that the learned trial Judge used the wrong indices in the assessment of damages.
The trial Judge took into consideration the following wrong and extraneous factors like;
(1) That there is no development on the land.
(2) The size of the land.
(3) What the Plaintiff spent in acquiring the land or the monetary commitment by the Plaintiff on the land.
Counsel stated that the trial Judge should have considered the following:
(1) Damages or destructions which the Defendants visited unto the land.
(2) The state of the Plaintiff’s land before the Defendants’ act of trespass.
(3) The need to restore the Plaintiffs land back to the state it was before the act of trespass.
The Appellant in his statement of claim pleaded the things that were destroyed on the land as a result of their trespass;
(a) The beacons
(b) 25 trips of sand
(c) A canal dug on the land
(d) Dyke and heaps of laterite deposited on the land.
(e) The land is prone to flood during the raining season as a result of the activities of the defendants.
Counsel submitted that the paramount consideration in the award of damages would have been the cost of restoring the land to its original position. Kopek Construction Ltd Vs. Ekisola (2003) FWLR Pt. 139 Pg 1481.
The trespass of the Respondents was not mere unlawful entering but that there was a wilful destruction or damages to the land Kopek Construction Ltd Vs. Ekisola (supra). Counsel submitted that where a trial Judge awarded damages on wrong principles of law, an appellate Court would interfere with the award. The damages awarded are manifestly low and inadequate. Momodu vs. University of Benin (1997) 7 NWLR Pt 512, Pg. 325, Bala vs. Bankole (1986) 3 NWLR Pt. 127. Counsel urged the Court to reassess the award and increase same to a reasonable amount commensurate to the cost of restoring the land.
In response, the learned counsel to the 1st-4th Respondents submitted that the Appellant did not lead evidence damages nor the value of any of the losses.
The evidence of the Appellant in support of the damages is bare and cannot sustain the demand of N50,000.00. The Appellant has not put before the Court any yardstick to use in re-assessing the loss incurred by him for the trespass of the Respondents. The Appellant have not put in monetary terms the cost of the losses incurred.
The Appellant had not used the land for 15 years prior to the time of the trespass. Counsel submits that the trespass was not willful but for the common benefit of the public and urged the Court not to re-assess the general damages of N50,000.000 awarded by the trial Court.
Trespass to land is the wrongful invasion of the private property of another. It is trespass to land provided the entry into the land of another by a person is not authorized. Trespass to land is rooted in a right to exclusive possession of the land allegedly trespassed. Trespass to land is therefore actionable at the instance of a person in possession of the land. Ndukuba Vs. Izundu (2007) 1 NWLR Pt. 1016 Pg 432, Okoko Vs. Dakolo (2006) 14 NWLR Pt. 943 Pg 554, Ogundeji Vs. Adenle (1993) 9 NWLR Pt. 316 Pg 224.
The owner of land is entitled to undisturbed enjoyment of it against all wrong doers. Agu Vs. Nnadi (1999) 2 NWLR pt. 589 Pg 131. Adepoju Vs. Oke (1999) 3 NWLR Pt. 594 Pg.154, Oyadare Vs. Kefi (2005) 7 NWLR Pt. 925 Pg 571. Balogun Vs. Akanji (2005) 10 NWLR Pt. 933 Pg 571.
Trespass to land constitutes the slightest disturbance to the possession of land by a person who cannot show a better right to possession. Imona-Russel Vs. Niger Construction Ltd (1987) 3 NWLR Pt. 60 Pg 298. In the instant case, the Appellant proved his titled and possession of the land in dispute. The Appellant also proved that the Respondents trespassed unto his land.
There is actually no dispute as to the question of whether the Respondents trespassed. The Respondents however claimed that the government was in the process of acquiring the disputed land. This was not proved and as such it would be taken that- the Respondents made an authorized entry into the Appellant’s land.
Where a claim for trespass is successful, the Plaintiff/Appellant is entitled to damages even where no damage or loss is caused. Ajayi Vs. Jolaosho (2004) 2 NWLR Pt. 856 Pg. 89, UBA Plc. vs. Samba Petroleum Co Ltd (2002) 16 NWLR Pt.793 Pg. 361.
In this case, the Plaintiff/Appellant averred that he had deposited 25 trips of sand on-the land/and had stated how much it cost him to register the land. Apart from these averments, there is nothing given in evidence to show, the losses suffered by the Appellant. The Appellant in his averments, his examination in chief and cross-examination did not state what his losses were. The size of the land is known but, the Appellant did not state the approximate cost of the land. It is trite that in a claim for damages for trespass and an injunction to restrain further trespass once there is a finding of trespass, the claims for damages and injunction must be awarded by the Court. Ogunyombo Vs. Ookoya (2002) 16 NWLR Pt 793, Pg 224.
With the above, the Appellant is entitled to damages for trespass. The trial Court did award N50,000.00. The trial Court in its wisdom stated that the Appellant had indeed deposited 25 trips of sand and has summarized the cost of registration of his instruments of title. Apart from these there was no other index of measuring or quantifying the loss occasioned by this trespass.
General damages cover all losses which are not capable of exact quantification. It may include all non-financial loss (past and future) and future financial loss. Items of general damages need not and should not be specifically pleaded, but some evidence of such damage is required Okuneye Vs. Lagos City Council (1973) 2 CCHCJ Pg 38.
The Court held above that’ there is no fixed rule by which to assess general damages. It is indeed difficult to ascertain. The Appellant or the claimant of such damages ought to provide some evidence to aid the court in assessing the loss occasioned by such a trespass. The Appellant herein did not provide enough evidence to aid the trial Court in assessing properly the loss. There was indeed a trespass, but what is the quantum of damage and what is the cost of restitution to status quo ante.
These the Appellant has not provided. The trial Court used the indices provided to reach the amount of N50,000.00. Indeed, this Court cannot do better than that, as it realizes the paucity in evidence provided by the Appellant. The cost of the land is not in evidence and the cost of damage to the land is not also, in evidence. The Appellant did not indicate what calculations he did to arrive at N50m general damages.
This matter of general damages is really at the discretion of the Court to award a fair and reasonable compensation having regard to the circumstances of the damage.
The basis of assessment of damages in nuisance actions depends upon whether the acts complained of have caused physical damages to the claimant’s property, or whether they have merely interfered with claimant’s enjoyment of his land. In the case of damages to property, the claimant is entitled to the amount by which its-value has been diminished. Ige Vs. Taylor Woredron (Nig) Ltd (1963) LLR Pg 140 In the case of trespass to land the claimant is entitled to be restored as far as possible to the position which existed before the wrongful, act was committed by the Defendant. He is thus entitled to restitution in integrum. Law vs. Stirling Astaldi (Nig.) Ltd. 1977 Pg. 125.
The trial Court used, the relevant information elicited from the pleading. and the evidence in reaching the award of the sum of N50.000.00. As of the time of this award in 2001 when this judgment was delivered, the award would not have been manifestly low considering the circumstances of this case and the indices available to the trial Court. I therefore resolve this issue in favour of the Respondents.
This appeal succeeds in part and I make the following orders as per the Appellant’s claim.
The Court hereby declares that:-
– The Appellant is the bonafide owner of land situate along Jimeta Yola Road covered by Certificate of Occupancy No. GS/2581.
– The Respondents shall vacate the said land covered by Certificate of Occupancy No. GS/2581 and to refill the gutter or water canal dug and restore the beacons destroyed by the Respondents on the Appellant’s land.
– The Court hereby orders a perpetual injunction restraining the Respondents by themselves, their agents, privies, servants or howsoever from trespassing and/or committing further acts of trespass on the Appellant’s land covered by Certificate of Occupancy No. GS/2581 with an area of 2.333 hectares.
The damage of N50,000.00 awarded by the trial Court is hereby affirmed.
BODE RHODES-VIVOUR, J.C.A: I read in draft the leading judgment prepared and delivered by Ndukwe-Anyanwu JCA. I agree with his Lordship that the appeal succeeds in part and I abide with the orders made.
ABUBAKAR DATTI YAHAYA, J.C.A: I have had the advantage of reading the advance copy of the judgment of my learned brother, NDUKWE-ANYANWU just delivered. I agreed with the reasoning and conclusions reached therein, that the appeal succeeds in part. I abide by the Orders made therein.
Appearances
J.O. Makinde Esq.,For Appellant
AND
Idi Ali Esq.,For Respondent
