Lagos lawyer Adekunle Adenekan, in this article on the resolution of a 42-year-old land case, calls for review of the Land Use Act.
Against the backdrop of the recent execution of the Supreme Court decision covering a vast area of 398 Acres of Land as delineated on Survey Plan No CK/LS/272 lying and being at the Ogba/Agidingbi/Alausa Axis of Ikeja, Lagos State being thereby the culmination of a 42-year-old legal tussle instituted in 1977 in Suit No ID/216/77L, it has become incumbent even imperative to holistically examine the salient emergent Legal issues surrounding the acquisitive rights of Governments viz–a– viz the enforcement of Judgment and reform initiatives in our body of adversarial jurisprudence.
To put matters in proper historical perspective, clarity and context, the case of the Judgment Creditors, the Akinole and Oshiun Families of Ogba, Ikeja, was that the Judgment Debtors, the Mogaji and Saka Families of Ogba were their customary tenants under Yoruba Native Laws and Customs.
They therefore sought a forfeiture of the customary tenancy as a result of the failure and refusal of the customary tenants to accord recognition to the over–lordship of the Land owners vide the performance of the requisite obligation of paying tributes to the Akinole and Oshiun Families. HON. JUSTICE B. O. MARTINS (of blessed memory) on the 19th day of August, 1983 in a considered Judgment after trial decided in favour of the aforesaid Judgment Creditors.
The Trial Court, however, instructively remarked further in the Judgment as follows “In the present case, the Defendants (being the Mogaji and Saka Families) have not put up any defence to the action of the Plaintiff. I am satisfied that they had notice of the present action in Court” – the implication of these foreboding remarks is all too telling and obvious in its ominous portentousness and grim significance as shall later be revealed in this piece.
The case of the Lagos State Government as gleaned from the Judgment of the Court of Appeal in CA/L/649M/06 dismissing her application of 5/10/06 for leave to Appeal against the aforesaid Judgment of HON. JUSTICE B. O. MARTINS was that the parcel of Land the subject matter of Suit No ID/216/77L forms part of a large tract of Land measuring an area of 7,300 Acres north of the airport in Ikeja Division of Lagos State acquired by the LASG in 1969 by Notice of Acquisition published in the Lagos State Government Gazette as Legal Notice No 236 of 14/10/69 and subsequently affirmed by a Vesting Order No 8 of 1976 published in Official Gazette No 25, Volume 9 of 18/6/76.
The Lagos State Government thereafter by an Originating Summons approached the Lands Tribunal in Suit No LT/LS/35/89 for a determination of the quantum of compensation payable to all persons and families affected by the Global Acquisition.
Whilst some families were indeed paid compensation, the Akinole and Oshiun Families listed as No 131 in the compensation action as it affects Alausa Village (as opposed to Agidingbi Village the very subject of ID/216/77L) were not so paid on account of a Counter Claim contesting the precise area of Land being laid claim to by them.
The Mogaji and Saka Families were respectively listed as Nos 83 and 84 in the Originating Summons filed in Suit No LT/LS/35/89. It is equally instructive to note that the Lagos State Government by a notice of Excision published as Notice No 92 in the Official Gazette No 15 Vol. 10 dated the 31st day of March, 1977 excised and/or released a portion of the earlier acquired Land measuring approximately 14.54 Hectares (about 30 Acres) back to some of the Traditional/Customary Claimants.
It is not however clear whether the Judgment Debtor families in ID/216/77L were part of the beneficiaries of the excision exercise. However, by virtue of a Notice of withdrawal of excision/revocation published vide a Newspaper advertorial of Monday the 25th day of February, 2008, the Lagos State Government withdrew and consequently revoked the Notice of Excision of all the 14.54 Hectares (about 30 Acres) earlier excised and published in the Gazette No 15 Vol. 10 of 31stMarch, 1977 affirming thereby the validity and veracity of the 1969 Global Acquisition.
It’s also of substantial consequence to note that there were at least no less than 45 persons and families laying claim to varying and distinct pieces and parcels of Land at Agidingbi as enumerated in the Originating Summons filed by the Lagos State Government in Suit No LT/LS/35/89.
None of the persons and families listed as Claimants in LT/LS/35/89 excepting the Akinole and the Mogaji Families were parties to the foundational Suit No ID/216/77L before HON. JUSTICE B. O. MARTINS (LATE). There was also no manifest evidence of any appeal whatsoever having been lodged against the Judgment in ID/216/77L by any of the 42 other Claimants to compensation in LT/LS/35/89.
We must also not lose sight of the fact that the propriety, substance and legality of the aforesaid Acquisition by the Lagos State Government at no time during the course of the proceedings from the trial to the Apex Court constituted the fulcrum or subject matter of any adversarial disputation, contest or arguments.
This immutably brings up to the fore the consideration of the salient Legal position as between the original parties as well as their privies, assigns and successors – in – title.
The Legal appropriateness of whether a Judgment on pleadings against a family can be interpreted to bind or affect the whole community consisting of so many other families is no doubt a matter of subjective consideration though it is not altogether clear whether such Judgments can operate as Rex Judicata as against the whole community.
However, the issue of whether a Judgment in rem being a solemn pronouncement upon the status of a particular subject matter by a Court of competent Jurisdiction can be interpreted to BIND other persons outside of the immediate parties and their privies to the litigation is patently clear that it does not admit of any ambiguity whatsoever.
We must also note that as yet and till date, the primary Judgment in ID/216/77L remains extant, subsisting and valid as it has yet be the set – aside, vacated or overturned by any Court of competent Appellate Jurisdiction, (42) forty – two years thereafter.
Indeed, whilst Section 287(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) provides as a general rule that “The decision of the Supreme Court shall be enforced in any part of the Federation by all authorities and persons and by Courts with subordinate jurisdiction to that of the Supreme Court”, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chief F. E. Babatola vs. Oba Aladejana the Alaworoko (2001) 30 WRN page 57 that “It is settled Law and practice that the Court cannot give a Judgment against a person who will be affected by the decision if such a person is not made a party or has no opportunity of defending the suit.
The Court has no Jurisdiction to decide the fate of a person or a matter concerning him when such person is not made a party to the action” – appears to canvass the caveat that there may be extenuating circumstances for a non – party to a Judgment to forestall its enforcement on him.
We must, however, be reminded that there are generally (2) two exceptions to the above stated rule as per the holding of the self – same Supreme Court in OSUNRINDE & ORS. VS. AJAMOGUN & ORS. (1992) 7 SCNJ 79 namely that (a) A person who is in privy with the parties to the Legal contestation is bound equally with the parties and is thus estopped by the doctrine of rex judicata from contesting the resultant Judgment therefrom and (b) A person may have so acted as to preclude himself from challenging the Judgment for example by standing idly by whilst his rights are being determined in a Court of Law is estopped by his conduct from contesting the outcome of the Judicial decision against his predecessors–in–title.
The length of time expended on litigation in the law courts is infinitely too long. The time for a wholesome review of the Rules of Court procedure to allow for a fixed term limit for the determination of cases from the trial to the Apex Court is now.
Litigating a matter for 42 years is worryingly vexatious if not outrightly scandalous in its negativing accentuation of the concept of Justice delayed being tantamount to Justice denied.
In conclusion, there is the need to take a holistic view and review as the case may be of our land legislations chief of which is the Land Use Act as it appears from all accounts to have outlived its utilitarian value, if there ever was any.
The crass injustice that took 42 years to litigate and mitigate bodes ill for our judicial system.
Leave a Reply