Whether Interference With Right to Property Must Be Strictly in Accordance to the Law

CASE TITLE: OGBUJI & ORS v. OGBONNA & ORS (2024) LPELR-62168(SC)
JUDGMENT DATE: 22ND MARCH, 2024
PRACTICE AREA: CIVIL PROCEDURE
LEAD JUDGMENT: UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on Civil Procedure.

FACTS:
This is an appeal by the Appellants against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, held at Owerri, wherein the Court allowed the appeal of the respondents at the Court below and set aside the judgment of the High Court which was in favour of the present appellants. Not satisfied with the decision, the appellants have appealed to this Court.

The facts that led to this appeal are that the appellants instituted an action seeking the following reliefs:

i) A Declaration that the decisions contained in the White Paper altering the agreement between the appellants and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited and that between the appellants and other oil and gas companies in OWAZA were illegal, null and void, and against the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
ii) A Declaration that the respondents are not competent to interfere with the agreement between the appellants and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited and between appellants and other oil servicing companies with respect to the benefits of the appellants on account of the said agreement and to substitute an entirely different arrangement from the pre-existing contractual rights.
iii) An Injunction restraining the Respondents from further interfering with pre-existing agreements, and
iv) An Injunction restraining the respondents from further intimidating or unlawfully forcing Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria with the Appellants.

The undisputed facts at trial are that the appellants are members of Umuagalaba family in Isi-Etitioha Owaza in Ukwa West Local Government Area. In 1975, Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Shell”) commenced Oil exploration in Owaza Community. Shell entered into an agreement with these families to pay compensation for damages and rent on account of their exploration. Other oil servicing companies also entered into similar agreement with families in the community. This arrangement was truncated by the Civil War and it resumed after the Civil War. Around this period, the Owaza communities were divided into four autonomous communities viz Ipu West, Etitioha Ipu, Isi-Etitioha and Igiri-Ukwa. In 2002, following the creation of four new autonomous communities out of Owaza community, a government panel met with the leaders for compensation and utilization of communally owned amenities in the area to avert a breakdown of Law and Order. The panel submitted a report, which led to the issuing of a WHITE PAPER by the Government of Abia State on the way forward in the sharing of the amenities provided by Shell and its contractors.

​The trial Court found the facts in favour of the appellants and granted the reliefs sought by them. The Court of Appeal, on appeal held that the appellants did not tender any agreement between them and Shell nor did the appellants tender the signature page of the White Paper for the two Courts below to determine who were signatories to the various meetings and the conclusion of the White Paper It allowed the appeal and held that a document not fully seen by the trial Court should not have been annulled. Hence this further appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:
The Court considered:

1. Whether the Abia State Government can validly issue Exhibit “A” in view of the constitutional and statutory demarcation of Legislative and Executive functions in Nigeria.
2. Whether Exhibits D-G were agreements within the framework of the law.
3. Whether the Court can take judicial notice of a white paper and whether the white paper was properly proved.”

DECISION/HELD:
The appeal was allowed by a majority decision. Ogunwumiju and Saulawa JJSC dissented.

RATIOS:

• APPEAL – BRIEF OF ARGUMENT – Effect of a brief of argument without a viable issue(s) for determination and/or argument
• CONTRACT – FORMATION OF CONTRACT – Principle governing the formation of a contract
• EVIDENCE – DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – Status of a receipt
• EVIDENCE – DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – Whether a document pleaded and admitted must be produced
• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – RIGHT TO ACQUIRE AND OWN PROPERTY – Whether interference with right to property must be strictly in accordance to the law
• APPEAL – INTERFERENCE WITH FINDING(S) OF FACT(S) – Guiding principles for the review/interference with findings of facts by the appellate Court
• GOVERNMENT – WHITE PAPER – Nature and status of a white paper
• GOVERNMENT – DUTY OF GOVERNMENT – Duty of every Government to comply with the provisions of the constitution
• WORDS AND PHRASES – “AGREEMENT” – Meaning of “agreement”
• EVIDENCE – ADMISSION/ADMITTED FACT(S) – Circumstances in which admitted facts may need further proof
• EVIDENCE – DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – Whether a Court can act on a document not tendered and admitted in evidence

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol