IN THE HIGH COURT OF IMO STATE OF NIGERIA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF OWERRI JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, OWERRI
THIS WEDNESDAY THE 9TH OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: – HON. JUSTICE I. M. NJAKA
SUIT NO. HOW/313/2016
BETWEEN
- CHIDI UNEZE
- INNOCENT AHUMIBE
- GODSON NNADI
- CHIEDU OSUJI
5 SABASTINE OPARAJI. …… PLAINTIFFS
- LOUIS OKORO
- FERDINAND UKAEGBU
- EMMANUEL AGUMANU
For Themselves And As Representatives of the Native Owners
of The Land In Dispute in Umuohiadagu/umuekwema,
Umumbazor, Nekede, Owerri West LGA And Purchasers
From Them; Except The 4th – 8th
Defendants And Their Supporters.
AND
- THE GOVERNOR, IMO STATE OF NIGERIA
- THE HONOURABLE COMMISSIONER
MINISTRY OF LANDS, SURVEYS & URBAN PLANNING
- MR. U.D. NWAIWU, DIRECTOR OF LANDS
MINISTRY OF LANDS, SURVEYS & URBAN PLANNING
- CHRIS OKECHUKWU —DEFENDANTS
- ASIKA UNEZE
- ONYEKACHI MADUAGWU
- H.R.H. EZE STEPHEN K. AGUMANU IV
JUDGMENT
This action was commenced by a writ of summon on the 4th day of May 2016. In the amended statement of claim granted on the 3-2-2022, the Plaintiffs claim against the Defendants jointly and severally as follows:
- DECLARATION that the alleged release of all that vast parcel of land known as and called OHIA UMUOHIADAGU/UMUEKWEMA situated at Umuohiadagu and Umuekwema in Umumbazor, Nekede in Owerri West LGA and delineated and shown in the Survey Plan, MCCO/1137/1MD 010/16, by 1st – 3rd Defendants; to the 4th – 8th Defendants, as purported representatives of the Umuohiadagu indigenes that own the OHIA UMUOHIADAGU/ UMUEKWEMA Land In Dispute, situated in Umumbazor, Nekede in Owerri West LGA; is wrongful, null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
- DECLARATION that the exclusion of the indigenes/families of Umuohiadagu/Umuekwema that own the OHIA UMUOHIADAGU/UMUEKWEMA Land in Dispute, especially the Claimants, as well as their vendees, of the aforementioned Land in Dispute, from the series of proceedings/meetings and negotiations over the said Land in Dispute, prior to and leading up to the purported release of the Land in Dispute by 2nd & 3rd Defendants; breached indigenes/families of Umuohiadagu/ Umuekwema that own the Land In Dispute
- DECLARATION that the payment by the 2 & 3 Defendants, of the sum of N4,000,000.00 (Four Million Naira) purported to be “Ego Opipie Ohia” (traditional land entry rite) in respect of the Land in Dispute to the 4th – 8th Defendants, when the transaction is a purported release to the land owners, what was allegedly done was a purported release to the land owners, is contradictory and is wrongful, unconstitutional, null and void.
- DECLARATION that the acts of harassment, intimidation and threats of detention of the Claimants at the instance of the 4th – 8th Defendants, using the instrumentality of the Nigerian Police Force, in the pursuit and determination of matters appertaining o the Land in Dispute, is unconstitutional and wrongful.
- INJUNCTION restraining the 1st – 3rd Defendants, by themselves, their servants and agents, from any further or other entry into the OHIA UMUOHIADAGU/ UMUEKWEMA Land In Dispute, and the 4th – 8th Defendants, by themselves, their servants/agents and any other person(s) claiming for or through them; from any further or other interference or action in respect of the Land In Dispute, that is adverse to the rights/interest of the Claimants on record, the Umuohiadagu/Umuekwema owners of the Land In Dispute and their vendees
This matter was re-assigned to this court for 19-11-2018. Parties embarked on out-of-court settlement. On 23-11-2021, the counsel to the Plaintiffs informed the court: “We regret to announce that the agreement did not concretize”. According to the counsel to the 4th – 6th Defendants: “The 4th – 7th Defendants said they are not accepting the settlement. It does not take care of their interest”
Hearing commenced on 5-4-2022. The PW1, Chidi Uneze made written depositions on 4-5-2016, 20-1-2017 (in response to Defendants’ statement of defense) and 16-12-2021 (following the amendment of the statement of claim). PW1 adopts these three depositions as his evidence before the court. Chidi Uneze identifies himself as a businessman and the 1st Claimant in the suit. He, along with other Claimants (1st-5th Claimants from Umuohiadagu and Umuekwema, and the 8th Claimant as a vendee), asserts that they represent the original landowners of the disputed land, referred to as “OHIA UMUOHIADAGU/UMUEKWEMA.” This land is at the center of the conflict.
According to PW1, the land in dispute is located in Umumbazor, Nekede, Owerri West LGA, and has been in the possession of the Umuohiadagu and Umuekwema indigenes. PW1 claims that this land was compulsorily acquired by the Imo State Government for public purposes, including the creation of Central Market, Commercial District, and various residential areas. However, no or inadequate compensation was provided to the landowners, which includes PW1 and other Claimants.
PW1 narrates that the land in dispute was allegedly “released” by the Imo State Government to individuals, represented by G.A.S. Amadi (a legal practitioner), through arrangements facilitated by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants (Ministry of Lands, Surveys, and Urban Planning). However, PW1 and other Claimants contend that the land in question is not communal but owned on an individual or family basis, and they were not informed or consulted about the release.
PW1 accuses the 4th to 8th Defendants, including the Traditional Ruler of Nekede, of collaborating with the 2nd and 3rd Defendants to facilitate the alleged release of the land. He alleges that the 4th Defendant falsely claimed the title of Chairman of the Umuohiadagu Native Meeting and has been working with the other Defendants against the interests of the rightful landowners. He further claims that the 8th Defendant, the Traditional Ruler, failed in his duty to protect the interests of the people.
PW1 testifies that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants paid the sum of N4,000,000 as a traditional rite (“Ego Ipipie Ohia”) for the land, but this money was pocketed by the 4th Defendant without reaching the rightful owners. PW1 describes this act as deceitful and a further breach of trust.
The witness to the violations of their rights, including the improper handling of the land release without majority participation of the rightful owners. He also points to the abuse of power by the Defendants, who have allegedly used their positions to intimidate and marginalize the Claimants.
PW1 and the other Claimants seek legal declarations, including that the purported release of the land is null and void, that their exclusion from negotiations and meetings was unconstitutional, and that the traditional payment was wrongful. They also seek an injunction to prevent the Defendants from further interference or actions that affect their rights to the land.
PW1 emphasizes that the native landowners of Umuohiadagu/Umuekwema, Umumbazor, Nekede, along with their vendees, explicitly authorized the Claimants to institute this legal action concerning the large parcel of land known as Ohia Umuohiadagu/Umuekwema. PW1 disputes the legitimacy of the 4th and 5th Defendants, stating that there has been no election of the Chairman or other executive officers in Umuohiadagu since the expiration of the last Chairman’s tenure. He asserts that the 4th and 5th Defendants are impostors supported by the 8th Defendant for self-serving reasons, and that the landowners never applauded them for their actions, which are viewed as a fraudulent attempt to deprive the landowners of their rightful entitlements. PW1 asserts that, out of respect for the traditional rulership represented by the 8th Defendant, the Claimants have refrained from engaging in direct disputes with him, despite provocations. He notes that many prominent individuals in the community have advised the 8th Defendant to distance himself from the Defendants to avoid the repercussions of their alleged schemes. PW1 points out that the 4th-8th Defendants have no standing to speak on behalf of the 1st-3rd Defendants regarding the acquisition of the disputed land. Ironically, despite their awareness of the alleged acquisition by the Imo State Government, the 4th-7th Defendants sold portions of their ancestral land to non-native buyers.
The 4th-7th Defendants, without consulting or obtaining the consent of the majority of the native landowners (whom the Claimants represent), unilaterally appointed Barr. G.A.S. Amadi as their attorney. The Claimants did not recognize or appoint Amadi for any legal purposes regarding the disputed land, and this was formally communicated to him and the 2nd Defendant through a letter from the Claimants’ Counsel, Don Oweregbulam, dated February 5, 2016. PW1 points out inconsistencies in the Defendants’ narrative, highlighting that while they claim the land was released to individual landowners, they simultaneously employed coercive measures, including the use of military force, to impose their will on the landowners. PW1 asserts that the release was a scam, evidenced by a letter the 5th Defendant circulated in 2015.
PW1 reiterates that there has been no legitimate executive body in Umuohiadagu to make decisions on behalf of the community, especially since the land is held by individuals, not communally. He argues that the lack of proper representation and the individual nature of landownership undermine any communal decision-making process regarding the land. PW1 provides examples of individual landownership within Umumbazor, noting that in previous land dealings, individuals appointed their own attorneys. He mentions various prominent individuals and attorneys who handled land transactions for different families in Areas U and UA, emphasizing that this practice of individual representation supports their claim that the land was not released on a communal basis. PW1 asserts that the burden of proving the alleged acquisition of the land by the Imo State Government lies with the Defendants, particularly the 1st-3rd Defendants, and not with the Claimants. PW1 accuses the Defendants of using Barr. G.A.S. Amadi to justify their invasion of the land, under the guise of a purported release that was never legitimate. He states that the native landowners remain the beneficial owners of the land through customary inheritance. PW1 argues that the election of the 4th Defendant, allegedly conducted on November 19, 2016, took place after the suit was already pending in court and, therefore, should not be considered valid or relevant. PW1 states that neither he nor the other Claimants received any portion of the N4,000,000 paid by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants to the 4th-8th Defendants. He suggests that this sum was collected without the knowledge or consent of the rightful landowners. PW1 accuses the 8th Defendant of promoting unrest in the community through his involvement in the matter, citing several hostile actions, including his role at the Nigeria Police Zone 9 Headquarters in Umuahia. PW1 alleges that the Defendants’ petition against the Claimants was motivated by malice and an obsession with intimidating them into submission, a strategy that has so far failed. PW1 acknowledges that the court allowed the Imo State Bureau for Peace & Conflict Resolution to mediate in the matter. The Bureau received evidence from both sides and made findings and recommendations, which were presented to the court in a report dated October 20, 2021. PW1 refers to the Bureau’s report, which he relies on for further clarification of the matter. PW1 cites the Imo State Government’s White Paper on land matters, dated August 20, 2021, which affirmed the rights of citizens whose land was wrongfully acquired. The White Paper specifically addressed the Alaoma Residential Layout and Imo Paradise Layout, part of the land in dispute, and recommended that the land be released back to its native owners. PW1 concludes by relying on the relevant portions of the White Paper, which support the Claimants’ assertion that the land should have been returned to its native owners, and not hijacked by the Defendants.
The cross-examination of PW1 by counsel for the 1st to 3rd Defendants, FO Offurum Esq., challenged the Plaintiff’s claims regarding the ownership and status of the land in dispute Under cross examination the counsel first pressed PW1 on whether he was aware that the entire Owerri Capital Territory, within a 15-kilometer radius, was compulsorily acquired by the government under the Owerri Master Plan. PW1 asserted that he was not aware of any such acquisition. He argued that being part of the Master Plan does not automatically equate to land acquisition, emphasizing that there are procedural requirements for acquiring land. The counsel tried to establish that the land was part of a 1976 acquisition involving housing, a remand home, and a prison headquarters. PW1 refuted this, relying on paragraph 7 of the Plaintiffs’ claim and referring to a Government White Paper that supported their case.
The counsel introduced Exhibit 8, a land release letter, suggesting it applied to Umuohiadagu and Umuoma communities, and questioned PW1 on its authenticity. PW1 described the letter as a “purported” release, emphasizing inconsistencies such as the incorrect singular reference to “letter” instead of “letters” for multiple attorneys. He also pointed out that Umuohiadagu and Umuoma are distinct communities, arguing that the release only pertained to Umuoma, not Umuohiadagu.
The counsel tried to establish that Barr. G.A.S. Amadi was genuinely appointed as an attorney for both Umuohiadagu and Umuoma communities. PW1 denied this, referring to Barr. Amadi as a “self-acclaimed attorney” and accusing him of collaborating in a fraudulent scheme to acquire the land.
Counsel sought to demonstrate that the release of compulsorily acquired lands follows a statutory process, including the 60/40 formula where 60% of the land goes to the government and 40% to the indigenes. Additionally, indigenes are expected to elect attorneys to represent them in such matters. PW1 consistently denied knowledge of these processes and reiterated that the land release was a scam because due process had not been followed. He dismissed the statutory requirements for electing attorneys, stating he was unaware of any such obligations.
The counsel asked PW1 whether he accepted the Government White Paper report that referred to the subject land as Alaoma Estate. PW1 partially accepted the White Paper but argued that the Defendants were being “parochial” by focusing solely on Alaoma Estate. He maintained that the case involved other parcels of land, as captured in paragraph 7 of the Plaintiffs’ claim, which included additional areas (T, TA, U, UA, etc.).
The counsel raised questions about the native parties involved in the suit, suggesting that some defendants, specifically the 6th, 7th, and 8th Defendants, were natives of Umumbazor, not Umuohiadagu, and that Umuekwema natives were not part of the suit because they had no claim to the subject land. PW1 confirmed that the 6th, 7th, and 8th Defendants were from Umumbazor, but he stressed that the suit included both natives and non-natives with stakes in the land, rebutting the assertion that Umuekwema natives had no claim.
The counsel asked whether traditional titleholders like the 7th Defendant (an Nze) were involved in the land dispute and suggested that it was customary to deal with such titleholders in land matters. PW1 acknowledged the 7th Defendant’s Nze title but asserted that he was not an Nze during the purported land release exercise. Furthermore, he rejected the notion that traditional titles automatically afforded individuals authority in land dealings, especially when there was a dispute.
Counsel alleged that the 2nd Defendant had conducted a “capturing claim survey” for the land in dispute, suggesting PW1 had no land interest at that time and thus did not participate. PW1 denied the occurrence of such an exercise, insisting that if any such survey had taken place, it was part of the fraudulent scheme.
The counsel attempted to link the 7th Defendant’s Nze title to his involvement in the land release, asserting that he held the title during the time of the purported land exercise. PW1 rejected this, reiterating that the 7th Defendant was not an Nze at the time of the exercise.
Under the cross-examination of the PW1 by counsel to the 4th to 6th Defendants, P.E. Chima Esq; PW1 confirmed that he, along with others, instructed their lawyers before filing the suit and that the content of the suit was consistent with what they communicated to their lawyer. PW1 reiterated that neither GAS Amadi nor any other person was instructed by their group to represent them in dealings with the government regarding the land release. PW1 denied affirming that the government had acquired the land. He explained that their claim was based on the defendants’ illegal trespass into their land, rather than any formal government acquisition. He further clarified that the term “purported” did not signify actual acquisition but was used to describe the defendants’ claims.
When questioned about whether the plaintiffs had sold their land to non-natives, PW1 denied the assertion, claiming it was false. He emphasized that the buyers, both natives and non-natives, were concerned stakeholders. However, PW1 also confirmed that these buyers were not owners of the land by inheritance.
PW1 was confronted with his deposition that suggested the government had designated the land as a reserved area. While he admitted making the deposition, he emphasized that the land in dispute was ancestral land, and there was no knowledge or formal challenge to the designation. He maintained that the land was never acquired by the government as there was no due process.
PW1 confirmed that they did not sue the government to challenge the purported designation of the land as a reserved area, as they believed it was their ancestral land. He claimed there was no need to take the government to court over something that belonged to them. PW1 agreed that the government has the power to acquire and release land, provided due process is followed. However, he insisted that no legitimate acquisition had taken place, and the plaintiffs were not privy to any formal release of the land by the government. PW1 acknowledged letters written on their behalf by their counsel, Don Oweregbulam, dated 23rd February 2016 and 16th March 2016, which were later tendered and admitted as exhibits 13 and 14. These letters expressed opposition to the defendants’ actions regarding the land and referred to a “kangaroo survey” being conducted by the defendants.
PW1 explained that there was a rumour that the government paid 4 million Naira for traditional rites (ipipo ohia) or omenala related to the land. However, he maintained that neither he nor his group received any part of the money and that the defendants were responsible for this portrayal. PW1 reiterated that part of their complaint, as outlined in exhibit 13, was that the government had compromised in favour of the defendants, further complicating the dispute over the land.
The cross-examination revealed the plaintiffs’ firm stance that the land in question was never lawfully acquired by the government and that the purported release of the land was a scam orchestrated by the defendants. PW1 consistently denied any involvement or knowledge of GAS Amadi’s role as an attorney representing them, and he rejected claims that the plaintiffs had sold their land in ways that prevented proper registration.
DEFENCE CASE
DW1, Mr. Chibuzor Okafor is a Lands Officer whose duties include handling litigation on land matters, acquisitions, and compensation payments. He does not know the claimants personally, but his testimony is based on official records. The layout in question was compulsorily acquired by the Imo State Government in 1976 under Edict Nos. 1 and 3 of that year. DW1 mentions that the land acquisition involved meetings with representatives of the original landowners, but the claimants in the current suit were not part of these representatives.
DW1 denies multiple paragraphs of the claimants’ statement of claim, particularly refuting that the claimants represented the original landowners or were involved in any official decisions or communications with the state government. He asserts that the claimants have no legitimate interest in the land as per government records. The layout was amongst lands released back to original landowners after application by their attorneys in 2014. This release followed all legal procedures, including acceptance of conditions attached to the release by the landowners and their attorneys. The release was confirmed by official correspondence dated April 2015, which DW1 pleads to rely upon at trial. According to DW1, the actual owners of the land are the people of Okwu Umuoma, Umuikea Umuoma, and Umuohiadagu Umumbazor communities. He asserts that these owners were represented by their attorneys, not the claimants, and were compensated accordingly through traditional rites and financial payments. DW1 highlights that part of the problem in the layout stems from non-villagers who purchased and developed the land before its release without adhering to building regulations. However, these issues have since been resolved with the allocation of plots to the original landowners. DW1 confirms that compensation was paid to the landowners, specifically citing N2 million paid to the Umuohiadagu people. He also mentions that some of the plaintiffs have no ties to the land based on official records, and that the traditional rulers and elders, who were involved in the process, were the rightful representatives. DW1 asserts that all actions related to the acquisition and release of the land were done in accordance with the law, specifically referencing government acquisitions through community elders and town planning regulations. DW1 denies the claims made by the plaintiffs regarding the ownership and rights over the land. He states that the plaintiffs neither represent the original landowners nor have any valid interest in the land. He asserts that the plaintiffs’ suit is mischievous, frivolous, and lacks merit, urging the court to dismiss it.
Under cross-examination of DW1 by the counsel for the plaintiffs, Don Onweregbulam Esq., DW1 confirms that the Imo State Government acquired certain areas in Nekede, including central market areas, commercial districts, and others such as Areas R, T, U, TA, UA, and W. However, DW1 disputes the claim that the surrounding land was left for the indigenes to expand their choked homestead, stating instead that these areas were designated as reserved land by the government master plan. DW1 acknowledges that the Land Use Act recognizes native ownership of land before government acquisition but asserts that the land is now held in trust by the government. DW1 further admits that the government carved out a portion of this reserved land to create the Alaoma Layout, which is at the heart of the dispute in this case. The release of portions of the reserved area to the 4th to 8th defendants, allegedly representing the Umuohiadagu community, is confirmed by DW1. However, when pressed about the specifics of the area in dispute (as indicated in exhibit 1), DW1 defers, suggesting the Surveyor General would need to confirm the exact boundaries. Under questioning, DW1 outlines the general procedure for government land acquisition, including notice, revocation of subsisting interests, perimeter survey, and claim surveys, followed by compensation payments. DW1 admits that a traditional rite payment was made to the community for the release of land, though he maintains that it was a customary gesture rather than a formal compensation. He clarifies that the sum was not paid at the time of acquisition in 1976 but as part of the land release process.
There is contention regarding whether a claim survey was conducted to determine the interests of native landowners. DW1 insists that the survey was done by the attorneys representing the Umuohiadagu community, though the plaintiffs’ counsel disputes this, arguing that the government is responsible for conducting such surveys.
DW1 concedes that prior to 2016, land registration was often conducted without physical inspections, leading to errors where individual interests in government-acquired land were registered. DW1 is questioned regarding the Imo State Government’s white paper report, which allegedly addressed the subject matter of the suit. DW1 challenges the plaintiffs’ interpretation of the report, asserting that it concluded that compensatory plots were released to the community, including the Alaoma Layout. DW1 identifies GAS Amadi and Beatrice as attorneys who represented Umuohiadagu and Umuoma, respectively, in negotiations for the land release. However, the plaintiffs’ counsel disputes the representation of Umuohiadagu by these individuals, pointing to inconsistencies in documentation.
DW1 acknowledges that decisions of the Imo State Government regarding the release of land are binding on all parties involved, including his office. He maintains that the government’s decision to release the land to the community stands, despite the plaintiffs’ counsel challenging the existence of evidence supporting this release. The defendant could not produce any letter written specifically in respect of Umuohiadagu.
At the close of evidence, the counsel filed and exchanged written address.
The Plaintiffs’ counsel stated that the Plaintiffs’ case revolves around the alleged unlawful acquisition of their ancestral land by the Defendants. The litigation began with a writ filed on 4/5/2016, with subsequent amendments, and the Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive reliefs regarding land known as “Ohia Umuohiadagu/Umuekwema.” They claim that the land, part of which was improperly designated as a “Reserved Area,” was not lawfully acquired by the government. The Defendants, specifically the 1st–3rd and 4th–6th parties, allegedly conspired to exploit this land for personal gain.
The Plaintiffs argue that large portions of the land in question were not legally acquired by the Imo State Government. The 1st–3rd Defendants collaborated with the 4th–7th Defendants to illegally designate this land as a “Reserved Area,” seeking to exploit it at the expense of the native people of Umuohiadagu. The Plaintiffs assert that their community, representing 95% of the original landowners, should have retained their lands for the expansion of their homesteads.
The counsel raised three issues for determination:
- Whether the Plaintiffs sufficiently discharged the burden of proof to be entitled to the reliefs sought.
- Whether there was a valid acquisition of the disputed land.
- Whether the 4th–7th Defendants acted as authorized representatives of the native landowners or were merely self-serving agents of the 1st–3rd Defendants.
The Plaintiffs argue that they have met the required burden of proof in this civil matter, particularly through the identification of the disputed land via a survey plan (Exhibit 1). The Defendants did not dispute the authenticity of this plan, and it is a well-established legal principle that unchallenged evidence is deemed admitted. Thus, the Plaintiffs assert that they have successfully proven the identity of the land in dispute.
The Plaintiffs’ claim to the disputed land as their ancestral home is uncontested by the Defendants. Even in the Defendants’ pleadings, it was acknowledged that the land belongs to the Umuohiadagu/Umuekwema community. The Plaintiffs submit that admitted facts need no further proof, reinforcing their position as rightful owners of the land.
The Plaintiffs argue that they validly represent 95% of the original landowners. They submitted a letter of authority to the court to confirm their representative capacity, and they claim that this document supports their standing in the lawsuit. According to the Plaintiffs, the mere filing of the letter of authority substantiates their representative claim, making further proof unnecessary.
According to the Plaintiffs several facts were established during the trial: The Plaintiffs, representing the majority of the Umuohiadagu people, are the native owners of the land in dispute. The land was not part of the area compulsorily acquired by the government but was illegally designated as a “Reserved Area.” There was no proper application for the release of the land to the rightful owners, and the Defendants unlawfully exploited it through a fraudulent scheme.
The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants, particularly the 1st–3rd Defendants, attempted to cover up their illegal activities by paying the native community N4,000,000 through the 4th–7th Defendants. This payment, rather than being a favour, is argued to be an attempt to retroactively validate their unlawful actions. The Plaintiffs submit that no valid acquisition of the land occurred, which is evident from the lack of any claims survey or other legal procedures required for lawful land acquisition.
The Plaintiffs point out that the 4th–6th Defendants failed to provide any substantial defence, and their efforts to cross-examine the Plaintiffs’ witness (PW1) were thwarted when their counsel withdrew from the case. Consequently, the Plaintiffs’ evidence remains unchallenged, and the court is urged to rely on this uncontested evidence in favour of the Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants failed to follow the legal procedures required for the acquisition of native land. Specifically, no claims survey was conducted, which would have been necessary to ascertain the rightful owners and determine compensation. This omission further supports the Plaintiffs’ claim that the land was never lawfully acquired by the government.
The Plaintiffs assert that they have successfully discharged the burden of proof, and the Defendants have failed to rebut their claims. Based on the uncontested facts, admissions by the Defendants, and the legal shortcomings in the acquisition process, the Plaintiffs urge the court to rule in their favor, granting the declaratory and injunctive reliefs sought.
In summary, the Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants conspired to unlawfully appropriate their ancestral land through fraudulent means, failing to follow the legal procedures for land acquisition. The Plaintiffs have provided substantial evidence, including a survey plan, to support their claims, which remain largely uncontested by the Defendants. Thus, they believe they are entitled to the reliefs sought.
The 1st – 3rd Defendants in their final written address contend that the Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently prove their case to be entitled to any of the reliefs sought. They argue that the burden of proof lies on the Plaintiffs, as stipulated under Sections 131 and 132 of the Evidence Act, 2011, which requires that the party asserting a claim must provide evidence to substantiate it. Failure to do so, they argue, means the court cannot grant the claim.
The subject land, known as Umuohiadagu/Umuekwema (including areas like Alaoma Layout), was acquired by the Imo State Government in 1976 under Edict 1 and 3 of 1976, which declared the land part of the Owerri Capital Territory. The 1st – 3rd Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs acknowledge this acquisition in their statement of claim, thus negating any claim of trespass or unauthorized occupation by the 1st – 3rd Defendants.
The Defendants argue that the land was released back to the native owners by the government, at the owners’ request, through their appointed attorneys. Therefore, any dispute regarding the release process is moot since the Plaintiffs and the representatives of the native owners participated in the process.
The 1st – 3rd Defendants points out contradictions in the Plaintiffs’ evidence. For example, under cross-examination, the Plaintiffs’ witness (Pw1) admitted ignorance regarding key details of the acquisition and release processes, such as not knowing whether the land was designated as a reserved area or challenging that designation.
The Defendants argue that they have long possession and ownership of the land, which has not been contested by the Plaintiffs. The 1st – 3rd Defendants claim that their acts of ownership, coupled with the government’s official acquisition and release of the land, show that they are lawfully in possession of the property.
The Defendants cite legal principles concerning ownership and trespass on land. A claimant seeking damages for trespass must prove title to the land. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have failed to prove title or any of the recognized legal methods to establish ownership, such as traditional history, production of title documents, or acts of ownership over a significant period.
The Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs’ case is inconsistent and lacks credible evidence. They argue that the contradictions in the Plaintiffs’ pleadings and testimony render the evidence unreliable. The law, they argue, holds that if a party presents contradictory evidence, the court should treat it as incredible.
The Defendants argue that there is no cause of action against them. They assert that the Plaintiffs’ suit is based on actions of the 4th – 6th Defendants, who were allegedly unauthorized representatives. However, the Plaintiffs have failed to show how the 1st – 3rd Defendants are liable in the matter.
In conclusion, the 1st – 3rd Defendants urge the court to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ suit in its entirety. They argue that the Plaintiffs have failed to prove their claims on a balance of probabilities, as required by law. Furthermore, the evidence presented by the Plaintiffs is inconsistent, and the court should find in favour of the Defendants. G&T Invest. Ltd v. Witt & Bush Ltd (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt 1250) 500 SC
The Plaintiffs’ counsel filed reply to the final written address of the 1st – 3rd Defendants.
The Plaintiffs’ counsel asserts that the cases and legal principles cited by the Defendants are general and trite, but are not relevant to the specific facts of the current case.
The Plaintiffs claim that there is no ambiguity about the dimensions of the disputed land, which is clearly defined in the unchallenged Dispute Survey Plan. This undermines the Defendants’ position regarding the boundaries of the land. The Defendants failed to provide evidence of lawful acquisition of the disputed land. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants cannot rely merely on the designation of the area as “capital territory” without following the constitutional requirements for acquisition, such as conducting a Claims Survey and paying adequate compensation. Since these steps were not taken, the land cannot be considered lawfully acquired.
The Plaintiffs further argue that the Defendants’ attempt to pay N4 million, described as “Ego Ipipie Ohia,” was inconsistent with the claim that the land had already been acquired. If the land had truly been acquired by the state, there would have been no need to pay the native owners to “release” it. This discrepancy casts doubt on the Defendants’ claims.
According to the counsel, the Plaintiffs deny having participated in the process to release the land, and the letters submitted in evidence reflect this. Since admitted facts need no further proof, the Defendants’ claims of release are unsupported. Additionally, the “15m radius” measurement the Defendants rely on is vague and without clear legal backing.
The Plaintiffs point out inconsistencies between the Defendants’ evidence and the law. For example, the testimony of DW1 mentioned a 12-kilometer radius, while the Defendants’ legal submission referenced a “15m” radius. These inconsistencies further weaken the Defendants’ case. Additionally, the counsel argues that Defendants are not allowed to use their written address to introduce new evidence that was not presented during trial. The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants failed to provide specific details of any contradictions in the Plaintiffs’ evidence. It is the duty of the party alleging contradictions to identify and prove them, rather than leaving it to the court to uncover such discrepancies.
The Defendants’ reliance on “overriding public interest” is misplaced, according to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs argue that this concept applies to land acquisition, not to the release of land that had already been acquired. Thus, the Defendants’ interpretation is flawed.
The Defendants failed to show that their actions in relation to the land were carried out in a “substantially regular” manner as required by law, particularly under Section 168(1) of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the presumption of regularity does not apply in favour of the Defendants.
The Plaintiffs argue that possession is irrelevant in this case, as possession cannot override the ownership rights of the true owner. This is a trite legal principle, and therefore, the Defendants’ reliance on long possession is misplaced.
The Plaintiffs’ counsel urges the court to disregard the arguments presented by the Defendants in their written address and to grant all the reliefs sought by the Plaintiffs. The counsel concludes that, based on the evidence and legal arguments presented, the Plaintiffs have successfully proven their case, and justice demands a ruling in their favour.
RESOLUTION:
The case at hand revolves around the Plaintiffs’ claim to a parcel of land, Ohia Umuohiadagu/Umuekema, which they assert has not been legally acquired by the Defendants (1st – 3rd), despite the Defendants’ contention that the land was designated as part of a capital territory. Having carefully examined the evidence presented on both sides, I am of the view that the issue that call for determination is:
Whether the Plaintiffs have established their claim over the land in dispute, and whether the Defendants have effectively refuted the Plaintiffs’ assertions with evidence of lawful acquisition.
In the course of the hearing, and after the counsel for the 4th – 7th defendants, has cross examined the PW1 who is the sole witness of the Plaintiff for two consecutive days, on the 3rd day of cross examination decided to withdraw his representation in the matter.
On What constitutes application for withdrawal of appearance of counsel, the court in S.B.N. PLC V. B.A.O. MOTORS (NIG.) LTD. (2004) 7 NWLR (PT. 873) 579 stated:
“An application by counsel to withdraw his representation in a matter must not be a mere expression of intention to withdraw his representation in future as it has to be unequivocally made to court, albeit at any stage of the proceedings. Any question of advance or prior expression of intention by counsel to withdraw counsel’s representation cannot on any construction tantamount to an application withdrawing counsel’s representation. It is beyond argument that an expression of intention to withdraw counsel’s representation in a matter is highly speculative and courts are not known to act on mere speculation. An expression of intention to withdraw counsel’s representation cannot be coterminous with a clear-cut application withdrawing counsel’s representation in a matter.
In this case, the counsel for the 4th – 6th Defendants cross examined the PW1 on the 18-10-2022 and 19-10-2022 and on the 3rd day of the cross examination being 25-10-2022, in the course of the cross examination, the following ensued:
P.E.Chima Esq. “If the PW1 continues to answer my question in this way and manner or continues to dribbling the way he is dribbling, answering evasively I will apply officially that this matter be transferred to the Chief Judge for reassignment to another court where the PW1 will not be dribbling the way he is dribbling and answering the question the way and manner he is answering the question and he will be called to order. I apply that the case be transferred to the Chief Judge for a transfer to another judge.
Court: I have listened to the application for transfer by counsel to the 4th and 6th Defendants. His main concern is the way and manner the PW1 answer question. He described it as ‘dribbling’, ‘pervasive’ ‘evasive’ etc. I must state out rightly that the complaint is not that the PW1 is aggressive and threatening in any manner. It is not that the witness has posed any danger to the court and the counsel in the matter. Again, it is the complaint of the counsel to the 4th – 6th Defendants that the court is doing nothing or not doing enough to call the PW1 to order. A understand this to mean compelling the witness to answer the question the way and manner that will be pleasing to the counsel or will make the counsel happy or show the court as tough.
——————————————————————————————————-
I will therefore refuse this application. It is refused and dismissed.
Chima Esq: I apply to withdraw from representing the 4th – 6th Defendants in this matter.
Court: On the application of the counsel for the 4th – 6th defendants, subject to inalienable rights of the parties, ceased to be counsel for the 4th – 6th Defendants.
Prior to this withdrawal, the court granted an amendment sought by the plaintiffs on the 3rd day of February 2022. In the appeal filed by the 4th – 6th Respondents’ counsel against the order for amendment, the following were the reliefs:
- To allow this appeal
- To set aside the orders and directions of Honourable Justice I.M.Njaka as contained in his ruling of 03/02/2022 granting amendment sought by the 1st – 8th respondents
- To other order that the suit subject matter of this appeal be transferred to another judge of the High court of Imo State than Honourable Justice I.M.Njaka for hearing and determination
ORDER 48 Rule 1 of Imo State High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2017 provides:
Every Legal Practitioner who shall be engaged in any cause or matter shall be bound to conduct same on behalf of the Plaintiff or Defendant as the case may be, by or for whom he shall have been so engaged until final judgment unless allowed for any special reason to cease acting therein.
The court in PA AKANDE ATOYEBI & ORS V. CHIEF EZEKIEL AYO OYINLOYE & ANOR (2021) LPELR-53990(CA) while interpreting Order 15 Rule 1 of the Kwara State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2005 which is in all fours with Imo State High Court Rules stated:
A careful reading of Order 15 Rule 1 shows that the rule relates to withdrawal of counsels appearance from a matter and not the right of a party to change his counsel. The right of a counsel to withdraw his appearance or representation from a matter before the Court is not the same as the constitutional right of a party to engage a counsel of his choice. The purpose of Order 15 Rule 1 of the Kwara State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2005 is protection of litigant. It is to ensure that a counsel who has been properly briefed to conduct a case on behalf of a litigant does not abandon the litigant midway by simply withdrawing his appearance from the case without any cogent reason. See OMALE V. FEDERAL MIN. OF LANDS, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT & ORS. (2015) LPELR-25906 (CA). However, where a party decides to change counsel, leave of Court is not necessary. See MUSTAPHA V. GAMAWA & ORS(2011) LPELR-9226 (CA) AT 37 (A). By Order 15 Rule 2 , the procedure to be followed in notifying the Court of withdrawal by counsel or change of counsel by a party is the same. However, counsel who intends to withdraw his appearance must show a special reason for his withdrawal. A party who voluntarily changes his counsel need not give any special reason or any reason at all.
Furthermore, RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT FOR LEGAL PRACTITIONER 2007 by Rule 21 provides
- A lawyer shall not abandon or withdraw from an employment once assumed, except for good cause.
- Good cause for which the lawyer may be justified in withdrawing from the client’s employment includes the following-
- conflict of interest between the layer and the client
- where the client insists on an unjust or immoral course in the conduct of his case;
- if the client persists against the lawyer’s advice and remonstrance in pressing frivolous defences; or
- if the client deliberately disregards an agreement or obligation as to payment of fees or expenses.
- Where the lawyer is justified in withdrawing from the employment, he shall give reasonable notice to the client allowing him time to employ another lawyer.
Despite the requirement for a counsel/lawyer to offer a reason for withdrawing from representing a client, I believe it will not be in the interest of a client to force an unwilling and unsure counsel on a client.
In difference to the inalienable right to representation, the 4th – 6th Defendants were giving more than enough time to re-engage a counsel of their choice. The matter was adjourned to 30-11-2022 and hearing notice was served on the 4th -6th Defendants on the 11-11-2022. That was about 19 days before the next adjourned date.
Hearing notices were subsequently served on the 4th – 6th defendants but they stayed away until 10-10-2023. A year after the withdrawal of the appearance of PE Chima Esq.
So, on 10-10-2023, a learned counsel HO Offoma Esq appeared for the 4th – 6th defendants and informed the court that he was just briefed to take over the matter from the former counsel. For this reason, the court granted adjournment, vacated the outstanding date of 17-10-2023 and refused the plaintiffs’ counsel’s prayer for cost. It was adjourned to 24-10-2023.
On 24-10-2023, the 4th – 6th Defendants were not in court and were not represented. It was adjourned to 14-11-2023, 16-11-2023, 21-11-2023 and 23-11-2023.
Eventually the 4th – 6th Defendants’ application for change of counsel, vacation of order of foreclosure and recall of witnesses was granted on the 23-11-2023, over a year after, with a total cost of N400,000 to the Plaintiffs and the 1st – 3rd defendants.
It was adjourned to 14-12-2023, 20-12-2023 and 23-1-2024 and 30-1-2024.
On 20-12-2023, despite the fact that they were served with hearing notice, they were absent and not represented. It was adjourned to 23-1-2024 and 30-1-2024.
On 23-1-2024, the 4th – 6th Defendant as well as the 7th Defendant were not in court and were not represented but the bailiff narrated his encounter with the counsel representing the 4th – 5th Defendants and the counsel for the 7th defendant.
The court will not wait indefinitely for the parties. Any person who unduly and deliberately delays the proceedings of the court will have himself to blame, if the court takes any adverse decision against him based on such unnecessary delay. See Eze v. F.R.N (2017) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1589) 433 at 478, paras. C-D).
In Gov., Imo State v. E.F. Network Nig. Ltd 2019) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1676) 95, the Supreme Court stated:
Generally, a hearing cannot be said to be fair if any of the parties in a case is refused a hearing or denied the opportunity to be heard, present his case or call his witnesses. The fair hearing constitutional provision is designed for both parties in the litigation, in the interest of fair play and justice. All parties in a matter are entitled to fair hearing. In other words, both the plaintiff and the defendant are entitled to be treated fairly. Both are entitled to justice and this must be seen to be done. However, where a person is given the opportunity but fails to utilise it, he should not be taken seriously when complaining of being denied fair hearing. In the instant case, the trial court gave the appellants opportunity to be heard but they failed to seize the opportunity. They were not denied their constitutional right to be heard.
It is obvious that all the parties were given an ample opportunity to put across their case unhindered. In ANIREJU EKUDANO & ANOR V. SUNDAY KEREGBE & 5 ORS (2008) 25TH JANUARY 2008, SC. 208/2002, the Supreme Court of Nigeria held that when a party is given ample opportunity to present their case but fails to do so, the court is justified in dismissing the case. The court emphasized that the judicial process must not be unduly delayed by the inaction of any party. The judicial process should not be held hostage by the indolence of any party. the right to fair hearing is not a license for parties to delay proceedings.
It is generally said that justice is a three-way traffic – the accused, the society and the complainant but when it comes to the lawyer; the traffic represents his client, the society and the court before which the trial is on going. This aligns with the statement attributed to the eminent jurist that: “In the Court of Justice, both the parties know the truth, it’s the judge who’s on trial”- (Justice JR Midha of Delhi High Court on his farewell speech)
On the issue for determination the Plaintiffs argue that the land was never lawfully acquired by the Defendants. They highlight the absence of key legal processes required for acquisition, as mandated by the Nigerian Constitution and judicial precedents. Specifically: 1. No ‘Claims Survey’ was conducted by the Defendants, a fundamental step in land acquisition. 2. No ‘adequate compensation’ was paid to the Plaintiffs or any other relevant parties, as required by law. In support of their argument, the Plaintiffs cite cases such as UKWA VS. AKWA LOCAL COUNCIL (1996) NMLR 41 AND OBIKOYA VS. GOV. LAGOS STATE (1987 1 NWLR (PT. 50) 385)
The constitutional right to own property is a sacrosanct right protected by law, and the government’s ability to acquire private land is not without limitations. The government cannot compulsorily acquire land without strict adherence to the provisions of the law, including the payment of adequate compensation and compliance with statutory procedures. In ELF PETROLEUM (NIG.) LTD. V. UMAH (2007) 1 NWLR (PT. 1014) 44, the court reaffirmed the constitutional right of individuals to own and dispose of property. The right to property is protected by the 1979 Constitution and its Chapter IV on fundamental rights, and this right cannot be derogated from unless the government follows the due process stipulated by law. In cases of compulsory acquisition for overriding public interest or public purpose, the Land Use Act applies, and compensation must be paid to the landowner. This is crucial to ensure that no one is deprived of their property unjustly or without compensation.
Furthermore, it is trite law that mere publication of a public acquisition notice does not vest title in the government. Global acquisition or issuance of a gazette does not, by itself, confer valid acquisition, see DR. KOLA WOLE EDUN & ORS V. PROVOST, LAGOS STATE COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ORS (1998) 13 NWLR (PT. 580) 52.
In GOLDMARK NIG. LTD. V. IBAFON CO. LTD. (2012) 10 NWLR (PT. 1308) 291, the court emphasized that while the government has the constitutional power to acquire property for public purposes, it must strictly adhere to statutory procedures. The trial court in that case found that the government had not served notice of acquisition, and both the trial court and the Court of Appeal ruled the acquisition null and void. This case further pointed out that the courts are duty-bound to intervene and protect private citizens when the government fails to comply with its own statutes governing acquisition.
In OVIAWE V. I.R.P. (NIG.) LTD (1997) 3 NWLR (PT. 492) 126, the court clarified that “public purpose” includes acquisition for housing, industrial, and economic development, but again, the acquisition must be carried out in accordance with the law. In this case, the court held that acquisition for industrial purposes falls under public interest, but it must be for a legitimate public purpose, and due process must be followed.
It is a well-established rule that clear and unambiguous statutory provisions must be construed according to the intent of the legislature, as emphasized in Oviawe v. I.R.P. (Nig.) Ltd. This reinforces that any government acquisition must strictly conform to the legal framework governing such acquisitions.
It follows that the Government cannot lawfully acquire land without complying with statutory provisions, including proper notification and payment of compensation. Failure to follow due process renders any acquisition null and void, and the title remains with the original landowners.
The Defendants argue that the land in question forms part of a ‘capital territory’, and thus, was acquired by the Imo State Government. However, they fail to provide documentary evidence of any valid acquisition process, such as a ‘gazetted acquisition’, a ‘Claims Survey’, or evidence of ‘compensation’ being paid to the landowners. While the Defendants point to the declaration of the land as “capital territory,” this alone does not satisfy the constitutional requirements for lawful acquisition.
The Plaintiffs presented evidence, including a Dispute Survey Plan, which identified the land in dispute as Ohia Umuohiadagu/Umuekema. This survey plan was unchallenged and therefore stands as a credible and reliable document showing the extent and dimensions of the land in question. UDECHUKWU V. EZEMUO (2009) 14 NWLR (PT. 1162) 525 On the other hand, the Defendants sought to rely on acquisition of the land by the Imo State Government, claiming that the land was designated as part of the capital territory. However, no concrete evidence was adduced to show that the acquisition followed constitutionally mandated procedures.
Mere designation of land as part of a government territory does not amount to acquisition unless proper legal steps, including the conduct of a Claims Survey and the payment of adequate compensation, are taken. In the instant case, the Defendants failed to provide evidence of such a survey or payment of compensation. Thus, the presumption of acquisition without proof of compliance with statutory requirements cannot stand. See OBIKOYA VS. GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE (1987) 1 NWLR (PT. 50) 385.
The Defendants attempted to invoke the principle of ‘overriding public interest’ as a justification for the acquisition. However, this argument pertains to the acquisition process itself, not to the release of land that was allegedly already acquired. Since the Defendants failed to prove that the land was acquired, this argument is irrelevant.
The Defendants also argued that they were in possession of the land and that this possession should prevail. However, the law is well-settled on the distinction between possession and ownership. In IDUNDUN VS. OKUMAGBA (1976) 9-10 SC 227, the Supreme Court laid down five recognized ways of proving ownership of land, including by title documents, acts of ownership, and traditional history. Long possession, though a factor, does not automatically translate into ownership, especially when the rightful owner, has provided superior evidence of title. The Defendants’ claim of possession without more cannot defeat the Plaintiffs’ established ownership rights.
The Defendants sought to invoke the presumption of regularity under Section 168(1) of the Evidence Act, arguing that the acquisition was done in a manner substantially regular. However, for this presumption to apply, the Defendants needed to show that the acquisition was done in a “substantially regular” manner. However, the court in HARUNA VS. UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE, MAKURDI (2006) ALL FWLR (PT. 304) 432 made it clear that such a presumption does not apply when statutory requirements have not been fulfilled. In this case, the Defendants failed to show compliance with the constitutional steps required for acquisition, such as conducting a survey and paying compensation. Thus, the presumption of regularity does not avail the Defendants. Given their failure to provide evidence of a proper acquisition process, the presumption does not apply in their favour.
The government whilst empowered to compulsorily acquire lands for public purposes, requires issuance of notice of compulsory acquisition to the owners of the land and publication of the said acquisition in the government official gazettes. These laid down procedures must be strictly adhered to for the acquisition to be legally valid. Failure to give the required notice of compulsory acquisition of lands to the owners will invalidate any such compulsory acquisition. See GBADAMASI V. JULIUS BERGER (NIG.) LTD (2021) 5 NWLR (PT. 1770) 419 AT 447, PARAS. E-F)
A party in a land dispute who asserts that the 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 section 28(6) and (7) and section 44 of the Land Use Act were duly complied with. See YAKUBU V. IMPRESIT BAKOLORI PLC (2011) 6 NWLR (PT. 1244) 564@ 582, PARAS. G-H)
The Defendants also claimed to have made a payment of N4 million, described as “Ego Ipipie Ohia,” to the Plaintiffs or their community. However, this act is not in alignment with typical government land acquisition procedures. If the land had indeed been legally acquired by the State, there would be no need for further financial negotiations with the original landowners. So, the Plaintiffs rightly argued that if the land had been properly acquired, there would have been no need for the Defendants to negotiate a payment of N4 million to the Plaintiffs, labelled “Ego Ipipie Ohia.” This inconsistency further undermines the Defendants’ case.
I will say that actions that deviate from the natural course of events invite judicial scrutiny. The payment of this sum contradicts the Defendants’ assertion that the land was lawfully acquired, as it suggests that they were attempting to secure release of land from its rightful owners, rather than dealing with already acquired government property.
Acquisition and release of land under the Land use Act has nothing to do with the traditional rite – ego ipipo ohia. If anything, the involvement of Ego Ipipio ohia is a confirmation that the land is still in the hand of the traditional land owners/plaintiffs in this case. It was never acquired by the State Government.
Now, have the Defendants refuted the claims of the Plaintiffs? in the process filed/frontloaded by the 1st – 3rd defendants there are some documents which were also tendered. When a document is duly pleaded, tendered and admitted in evidence, that document becomes the best evidence of its contents and therefore speaks for itself. It is the contents of the whole document that are in evidence. That being the case the court cannot disregard the document. See EMEJE V. POSITIVE (2010) 1 NWLR (PT. 1174) 48
One of the admitted documents is the letter dated 27th day of August 2014 from the Beatrice Onwuzurike titled: “Request for release of land to Umuoma Nekede Community Owerri West LGA”
Another one is dated 28-08-2014 from HRH Eze Stephen Kemjika Agumanu IV titled: “Release of Reserved Land to Umualum Nekede Community Land Owners”
Then the letter from the Director for Land for Hon Commissioner for Lands dated 24th April 2015 jointly addressed to Okwu Umuoma Nekede c/o Beatrice Onwuzuruike and Umuekea Umuoma Nekede/Umuohiadagu Umumbazor Nekede C/o Hon Barr GAS Amadi
This letter from the Director of Lands —, as pointed out by the PW1 started by saying:
“I am directed to refer to your letter dated 27th August 2015.”
This implies that there is only one letter that is being replied. There is only one letter and that is the one written on behalf of the Okwu Umuoma Nekede on the 27th day of August 2014 by Barr Beatrice Onwuzuruike.
There is no letter written on behalf of Umuohiadagu for the release of any land to Umuohaidagu. This fact was further laid bare in the course of the cross examination of DW1 by Emekoma Esq thus:
Q: In paragraph 18 of your deposition, you stated that the Attorneys of the land owners who applied for the release are Beatrice Onwuzuruike, Hon Barr GAS Amadi, in a letter dated 27-8-2014, it is clear that the said letter was written by the Beatrice alone with her letter head paper signed by her for the interest of Umuoma alone and not Umuohiadagu – exhibit 15?
A: Beatrice represented Umuoma Nekede.
Q: In paragraph 19 of your deposition a letter dated 28-8-2014 by HRH Steve Nkemjika Agumanu – exhibit 16 specifically is for Umualom Nekede and never included Umuohiadagu?
A: It is for Umualom together with Umumbazu.
Q: Also, in that letter the Umumbazu has Chief Sam Anuka as their attorney and never Chef GAS Amadi?
A: That is correct.
Q: Also, a letter dated 24-4-2016 by Jude M Ude exhibit 17 is specifically for Umuoma?
A: It was for release of land to Okwu Umuoma Nekede and Umuekea Umuoma Nekede and Umu Ohiadagu Umu Mbazu Nekede.
Q: The caption of the exhibit 17 stated categorically Umuoma Nekede and no other?
A: The caption stated Umuoma but the content i.e. the body stated it is for Okwu Umuoma Nekede and Umuekea Umuoma Nekede and umu Ohiadagu Umu Mbazu Nekede.
Q: There was never an application whatsoever from Umuohiadagu for release of land?
A: GAS Amadi who represented the Umuohiadagu wrote a letter to the ministry for release of the land.
Q: Where is the application of GAS Amadi with respect to ala umuohadagu Nekede?
A: In the exhibit 17 tendered it was a reply to both Beatrice for Umuoma and GAS Amadi for Umuohiadagu.
Q: I put it to you that in the said letter written by the Beatrice there was no connection with Umuohiadagu?
A: I referred to the exhibit 17 written by the Ministry.
Q: Where is the application of GAS Amadi, show it to the court?
A: I cannot find it.
There are also documents tendered by the 1st – 3rd Defendants titled: AGREEMENT: It has:
“We the undersigned landowners/elders of Umukea Umuoma in the Imo State Government reserved area Nekede today being the 10th August 2015, use this medium to acknowledge the receipt of One Million Naira Only (1,000,000) from Hutton Trust International Nigeria limited as traditional rites full and final payment in respect of the released land at reserve area Alaoma Nekede New Owerri on behalf of all the elders/owners in Umukea Umuoma.
It listed some names. The document was signed by Hon Barr GAS Amadi
Another AGREEMENT has:
“We the undersigned landowners/youths of Umukea Umuoma in the Imo State Government reserved area Nekede today being the 31st August 2015, use this medium to acknowledge the receipt of One Million Naira Only (1,000,000) from Hutton Trust International Nigeria limited as traditional rites full and final payment in respect of the released land at reserve area Alaoma Nekede New Owerri on behalf of all the elders/owners in Umukea Umuoma.
It listed some names. The document was signed by Barr Beatrice Onwuzurike
Another one, now, relating to Umuohiadagu- exhibit 24: it has:
“We the undersigned landowners/elders of Umuohiadagu in the Imo State Government reserved area Nekede today being the 15/03/2016, use this medium to acknowledge the receipt of Two Million Naira Only (2,000,000) from Imo State Ministry of Lands Survey Housing and Urban Planning as traditional rites full and final payment in respect of the released land at reserve area Alaoma Nekede New Owerri on behalf of all the elders/land owners in Umuohiadagu.
It listed some names.
These letters dated 27-8-2014, 28-08-14, 24-4-2015, 19-1-2015, agreement of 10-8-2015, and agreement of 10-8-2015, 31-8-2015 were tendered and marked exhibits –15, 16, 17, 18 19, 20,21.
In respect of the Umuohiadagu, the question will be: What has the Imo State Ministry of Lands Survey Housing and Urban Planning got to do with payment of traditional rite in respect of a purported government released land? The purport of government-released land involves the return of previously acquired land to its original owners or other parties when it is no longer needed for the public purpose for which it was acquired. It does not require the government to pay additional money. Release of land is essentially a reversal of the acquisition process. It accords to common sense if the recipients of the released land are required to pay administrative fees or revalidate their land titles, but this is not the same as the government paying traditional rite- ego opipio ohia.
Let’s make some observation on this document relating to Umuohiadagu- exhibit 24.
- The name Umuohiadagu and the date 15/03/2016 were hand filled while on the others it was not so
- The document was not counter signed by anybody while the other two were counter signed by Barr Beatrice Onwuzuruike and Hon Barr. GAS Amadi respectively.
- The amount is 2,000,000 while that of the other two were 1,000,000 each.
- The money is from Imo State Ministry of Lands, Survey Housing and Urban Planning as traditional rites full and final payment while the other two were from a company – Hutton Trust International Nigeria limited.
The defendants in the course of cross examination of the PW1 by the counsel to the 4th – 6th Defendants – PE Chima Esq., further revealed the unexplainable reason for the payment of the Four Million Naira.
Q: Your complaint was in respect of the move of the government to release the land in question
A: It is as it affects the trespass into the property whether it is release or not
Q: Was the government paying 4m for trespass or as ipipo ohia traditional rites or omenala for the release of the land in dispute
A: We wrote it the way we heard it that government paid them 4 million for ipipo ohia or ego omenala. We cannot add to it or remove from it.
Q: The 4M was it paid by Imo State Government to enable the Government trespass into the land or as a prelude for the government to release the land.
A: As long as we are concerned the money was paid at their own peril. I would not know.
Q: Read 2nd to the last line of paragraph 5 exhibit 14
A: Read
Q: You and your group expected that a part of the 4m ought to have been given to them.
A: No. We are portrayed as having received part of the money and we wanted to make it clear that we never received any dime because we are not part of the secret and deceitful dealing.
It is for the defendants to answer whether the payment of the 4milion naira was for trespass or ipipo ohia traditional rites or omenala for the release of the land in dispute.
The 1st – 3rd Defendants frontloaded a perimeter survey of reserve Umuoma Nekede. There is no such for Umuohiadagu.
The Plaintiffs submitted a ‘Dispute Survey Plan clearly identifying the boundaries and extent of the land in question. This document was not challenged or countered with an alternative survey plan by the Defendants. The clarity and specificity of the Survey Plan lend credibility to the Plaintiffs’ claims regarding the physical dimensions and the identity of the land.
It is important to note that the Chart Sketch dated 11-12-2014 – exhibit 22 and the Parameter Survey – exhibit 23 have nothing on their faces to do with Umuohiadagu.
The Defendants did not provide credible evidence contradicting the Plaintiffs’ claim that they were not part of any land release process. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ rejection of the release process stands unchallenged.
Having evaluated the evidence presented by both parties, it is clear that the Plaintiffs have successfully established that the land in question was never lawfully acquired by the 1st – 3rd Defendants. The Plaintiffs have provided credible, unchallenged evidence of ownership, supported by case law and statutory provisions. In contrast, the Defendants failed to prove that they followed the proper legal procedures for land acquisition. They are unable to refute the ownership claim of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs’ case is hereby upheld, and the Defendants’ claims are dismissed in their entirety.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECLARED AS FOLLOWS:
- It is declared that the alleged release of all that vast parcel of land known as and called OHIA UMUOHIADAGU/UMUEKWEMA, situated at Umuohiadagu and Umuekwema in Umumbazor, Nekede in Owerri West LGA, as delineated and shown in Survey Plan No. MCCO/1137/1MD 010/16, by the 1st – 3rd Defendants to the 4th – 8th Defendants, as purported representatives of the Umuohiadagu indigenes, is wrongful, null, void, and of no effect whatsoever.
- It is declared that the exclusion of the indigenes and families of Umuohiadagu/Umuekwema, especially the Claimants and their vendees, from the proceedings, meetings, and negotiations concerning the aforementioned land, leading up to the purported release by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, is a violation of the rights of said families and is wrongful.
- It is declared that the payment by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants of the sum of N4,000,000.00 (Four Million Naira), purportedly as Ego Opipie Ohia (traditional land entry rite) in respect of the land, to the 4th – 8th Defendants, was contradictory, wrongful, and unconstitutional, and is therefore null and void.
- It is declared that the harassment, intimidation, and threats of detention of the Claimants, orchestrated by the 4th – 8th Defendants through the Nigerian Police Force in connection with matters related to the land in dispute, are unconstitutional and wrongful.
- It is hereby ordered that the 1st – 3rd Defendants, by themselves, their servants, and agents, are restrained from any further or other entry into the OHIA UMUOHIADAGU/UMUEKWEMA land in dispute. Similarly, the 4th – 8th Defendants, by themselves, their servants, agents, or any other person(s) claiming through them, are restrained from any further or other interference or actions in respect of the land in dispute that is adverse to the rights and interests of the Claimants, the Umuohiadagu/Umuekwema families, and their vendees.
I so hold.
I.M.Njaka
Judge
9-10-2024
Appearances:
Don Oweregbulam with SI Emekaoma, CO Nwigwe and Ngozi Ekwensi, AC Alinor Mrs for the Plaintiffs
FO Offurum PSC for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants