WHETHER AN APPLICANT NEEDS TO ESTABLISH TITLE OF THE LAND HE OCCUPIES, BEFORE HE CAN BRING AN ACTION TO ENFORCE HIS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AGAINST WHOEVER VIOLATES HIS RIGHT OF OCCUPATION OF THE LAND/PROPERTY.

CASE TITLE: GOVERNMENT OF ENUGU STATE OF NIGERIA & ORS v. SUNDAY ONYA & ORS (2021) LPELR-52688(CA)                                                                                                                   

JUDGMENT DATE:         28th JANUARY, 2021

JUSTICES:                         AHMAD OLAREWAJU BELGORE JCA

                                           ITA GEORGE MBABA JCA

                                           JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE JCA

COURT DIVISION:         ENUGU

PRACTICE AREA:          Constitutional Law – Enforcement of Fundamental Human Rights.

FACTS:

​The Respondents, were allocated spaces to build stalls at what later became ENSEPA Mini Shops by the Enugu State Environmental Protection Agency (ENSEPA), an Agency of the Government of Enugu State. The Respondents paid the necessary approved fees, as demanded by the Appellants for the stalls/shop and were put in possession of their respective allocated spaces, following which they developed the stalls according to the prototype and specifications from ENSEPA.

The Appellants later issued notices to the Respondents to vacate their stalls in the park claiming compulsory acquisition of the stalls by the government. Subsequently, they demolished the stalls built by Respondents and which the Respondents occupied. The Respondents sought the services of Estate Surveyors and Valuers to value their demolished property and the firm valued the property at N850,000.00 each and issued certificates to each of the Respondents.

The Respondents as Applicants, then filed a representative action at Enugu State High Court seeking to enforce their fundamental human rights and for compensation from the Appellants for the compulsory acquisition and demolition of their stalls. The High Court found the Appellants liable for breach of the Respondents Fundamental Rights and granted their reliefs, including the award of N850,000.00 to each of them and also exemplary damages and cost against the Appellants.

Dissatisfied, with the decision of the trial High Court, the Appellants appealed.

ISSUES:

The appeal was determined upon consideration of the following issues:

(1) Whether the suit was properly instituted by the Applicants (Respondents), jointly.

(2) Whether the trial Court was right to hold the Appellants liable for breach of fundamental rights of Respondents, in the circumstances of the case.

WHAT OUR CLIENTS ARE SAYING…

I enjoy the software. Law Pavilion, Thumbs up!”

~BARR. NWAFILI OKWUOSA

lawpavilion

Recent Posts

Attorney General’s Consent: A Legal Requirement for Garnishee Proceedings Against the Government?

Introduction The latest decision by the Tax Appeal Tribunal (TAT) on Value Added Tax (VAT)…

2 days ago

5 Ways CaseManager Can Enhance Your Team Performance and Tasks

What is LawPavilion CaseManager Software?Key Features of CaseManager Software:5 Ways CaseManager Can Help Your TeamConclusion…

3 days ago

Whether an Aggrieved Party Must Exhaust All the Remedies Available to Him in Law Before Resorting to Court

CASE TITLE: FADAIRO & ORS v. NASU & ANOR (2024) LPELR-62868(CA) JUDGMENT DATE: 12TH JULY,…

3 days ago

Position of the Law Regarding the Requirement of Consent of the Attorney General Before Garnishee Proceedings Can Lie Against Any Government

CASE TITLE: CBN v. OCHIFE & ORS (2025) LPELR-80220(SC) JUDGMENT DATE: 24TH JANUARY, 2025 PRACTICE…

3 days ago

Application of the Doctrine of Stare Decisis

CASE TITLE:  SUIMING ELECTRICAL LTD v. FRN & ORS (2025) LPELR-80179(SC) JUDGMENT DATE: 29TH JANUARY,…

3 days ago

Whether a Bank is Bound to obey the Mandate of a Customer

CASE TITLE: ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES v. POLARIS BANK LTD & ANOR (2025) LPELR-80188(SC) JUDGMENT DATE: 17TH…

3 days ago