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

Limitation of Dowry Law: A Necessary Sanitizer or A Needless Intervention?

By Iniubong Idongesit Moses “I think we should get rid of the whole idea of…

2 days ago

Service At The “Last Known Address” – A Concept Taken for Granted In Nigerian Courts?

Service at the “Last Known Address” – A Concept Taken for Granted in Nigerian Courts?…

2 days ago

Image Rights in Nigeria: A Legal Perspective

By Oyetola Muyiwa Atoyebi, SAN FCIArb. (U.K) Introduction The protection of image rights holds significant…

4 days ago

Can a Non-Party Challenge a Court Judgment?

CASE TITLE: AKUT & ORS v. RWANG & ORS (2024) LPELR-61664(CA) JUDGMENT DATE: 22ND FEBRUARY,…

4 days ago

Whether the Corporate Affairs Commission Needs a Court Order to Conduct an Investigation into the Affairs of a Company

CASE TITLE: J.A. ODUTOLA PROPERTY DEV & INVESTMENT CO. LTD. v. CAC (2024) LPELR-61717(CA)JUDGMENT DATE:…

4 days ago