In its bid to transform Apapa into a portcity, the Lagos State Government has met the residents for their input. Seyi Odewale reports the outcome of the meeting between Commissioner for Physical Planning and Urban Development, Toyin Ayinde and the stakeholders.
TO the Shiriki family of Ikorodu, on the outskirts of Lagos, the battle for a 4.232 hectares of land with the police ended three years ago when a Federal High Court sitting in Lagos delivered judgment on the disputed. The family miscalculated. Rather than end, the battle seems to have just begun despite the court order. This is why the Shiriki family is now referring to the police as “law breaker”.
“How can a law enforcer turn law breaker; breaking the law with impunity? And where does one run to when an organisation that is supposed to ensure that the law of the land and its constituted authority are respected runs foul of the law it is meant to uphold?” A member of the family, Otunba Femi Alashe, wonders.
The Shiriki family, which is a branch of the Jiboro family of Ikorodu, initiated the land battle eight years ago. They accused the Shagamu Road Division, Ikorodu of the police of encroaching on the land and Justice A. R. Mohammed delivered judgment in its favour on March 19, 2010.
The family has vowed not to rest until it recovers the land in line with the court verdict.
Displaying copies of the judgment, Otunba Alashe wondered who will help the family recover their land from the police.
Delving into the history of the land, Otunba Alashe said it belongs to Jiboro family, but a portion of it was given to the police when the force wanted to establish a police post to complement the Ikorodu Division.
“It was only a small portion of the land that was given them to build a police post, which then served as the traffic section of Ikorodu Division. However, before we knew what was happening, the remaining area had been leased to mechanics and artisans, who turned the place to their ‘village.’ When we now went to survey the remaining portion, these artisans informed the police, who then chased away our surveyor. That was when we knew that the police were not joking with their claim to the land,” Alashe said.
He agreed that apart from the portion given to the police, there were areas marked as released area for the family. “When Baba, the late Pa Shiriki, who was given the land by the Jiboro family, discovered that there were encroachment on the land and that mechanics had taken over portions of the land, he wrote a letter to the police to report the presence of these people on the land. The letter was sent to the Police Headquarters’ annex, Kam Salem House, Lagos. The police then ordered the removal of sign posts and the artisans on the land.
“However, the sign posts resurfaced again and were erected in five different locations on the land, claiming the entire 4.232 hectares,” Alashe said, adding that “although, we have won the case since 2010 and there is no record of appeal, yet they have refused to obey the judgment of the court. All we want is for them to obey the judgment and allow us claim our land,” he said.
Alashe said efforts were made to enforce the judgment, but the police would not bulge. “We have served them form 48, which is the notice of consequences of disobeying the order of court, yet they were not bothered. This was served on them on September 29, 2010 about five months after we got the judgment, which they did not appeal,” he said.
The legal battle had begun on May 24, 2005 before Justice A. R. Mohammed of the Federal High Court, Lagos when six members of the family: Kunle Shiriki; Femi Shiriki; Gafaru Adekolujo Odekunle; Femi Alashe; Dele Idowu and Josephine Momoh, made a four-paragraph statement laying claim to the piece of land measuring 4.232 hectares with survey plan number FAL/46/97, being encroached upon by the Shagamu Road Division of the Nigerian Police. Joined as defendants in the suit, were: the Inspector-General of Police (IGP); Nigeria Police Force; Commissioner of Police (Works) and the Divisional Police Officer (DPO).
Their declarations were: “That the forceful encroachment of the defendants (IGP and others) into their (plaintiffs) family land lying and situate along Ogunshi Street, Ikorodu, Lagos State of Nigeria measuring approximately 4.232 Hectares and covered by the survey plan number FAL/46/97 is unlawful, illegal, null and void; That the plaintiffs’ family land does not fall within the area acquired or allocated to the defendants; they sought an “order of court compelling the defendants to remove all its sign-posts on the plaintiffs’ land; and also sought a “perpetual injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, agents, servants, privies from encroaching or further encroachment on the plaintiffs’ land.”
The defendants on receiving the writ of summons, filed a statement of defence and a counter-claim on December 21, 2005 and declared that: (i) “that the defendants are the rightful owners of the land in dispute and entitled to the statutory custom, right of occupancy; (ii) sought a “perpetual injunction against the plaintiffs and persons claiming title under the plaintiffs; (iii) sought an “order for N5million damages for trespass against the plaintiffs and (iv) and “an order for special damages of N350,000 of destroyed sign posts.
With the plaintiffs reply to the counter-claim dated April 26, 2006 and the defendants reply to the defence to counter-claim on May 12, 2006, the legal battle line was finally drawn. Trial subsequently started with the plaintiffs calling two witnesses in support of their case.
Giving testimony on behalf of the plaintiffs was Otunba Alashe, who spoke as a member of Shiriki family, tendered a survey plan that was prepared by one Falowo and it was admitted as exhibit PL1. Other items such as copies of correspondences between the family and the police and a copy of the survey that marked out the disputed area by the police were admitted as exhibits.
Femi Shiriki, one of the plaintiffs, also gave evidence in respect of the land. With the evidence of both Alashe and Shiriki, the plaintiffs closed their case on November 20, 2007. Defence opened their case almost two years after on March 10, 2009, calling only one witness, Ibikunle Adedipe, an Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP), who claimed to be an Architectural Technician in the Works Department of the Nigerian Police Force.
Adedipe, who claimed to have joined the force in 1980, claimed that the disputed land belonged to police, which had the possession in 1974. He said the Jiboro family, which is the larger family, was aware that the police were the owners of the land. He further stated that there were correspondences with the family by the police. He alleged that the family trespassed on the land, arguing through his counsel, Mrs O. Coker, that the police had been in possession of the land for over 40 years. But it was argued that there were correspondences between the family and the police on how a demarcation on the land would be carried out to give the family an ‘area of release’ and evidence of such correspondences was presented.
Justice Mohammed while delivering his judgment on May 19, 2010 noted that the plaintiffs’ counsel, Olumide Akinbinu, stated that the defendants’ counter-claim lend no evidence in support of their claim for damages for trespass and N350,000 special damages. He said he reviewed the evidence adduced by the parties and their respective addresses and he was of the view that there was no dispute between them on three areas: “That the land in dispute was originally owned by the Jiboro family; that the land in dispute is located along Ogunshi Street, Ikorodu, Lagos State and that both parties are claiming ownership through Jiboro family. He then submitted that the issue for determination by his court was “whether there is an area marked “Area of Release” in the disputed land.
To prove this, he said: “The plaintiffs tendered exhibits PL1 and PL5. In exhibit PL5, i.e. survey plan tendered by the plaintiffs, there is an area specially marked as “Area of Release”.
He continued: “However, in the defendants’ exhibit D2, there is no area marked for release. Before resolving this issue, it is pertinent to point out that the contention of the plaintiffs is not that the defendants have no land in the whole of the parcel of land, but that there is an area designated for release to the Jiboro family and that is the same area according to the plaintiffs which Jiboro family granted to the late Alhaji Shiriki. In the plaintiffs’ reply and defence to claim, dated 11/4/2006, it was pleaded that there is an area delineated for release.”
The judge ruled that the land in dispute does not belong to the defendants. “This is because, if the whole said land belongs to the defendants, the defendants wouldn’t have conceded in their exhibit D1 to go for any demarcation of the land with the Jiboro family. It is also instructive to note that nowhere in the defendants’ pleadings was it denied that the Jiboro family made a grant of a parcel of land out of the land in dispute.
“What is more? The plaintiffs have by both documentary evidence i.e. exhibit PL5 and oral testimony of prosecution witness (PW1) proved that there is an area marked for release in the land dispute. In view of the fact that by their exhibit D1, the defendants have conceded to a demarcation of the portion of their land with the Jiboro land, then I am not prepared to accept the content of the exhibit D2, which tend to show that there is no area marked for demarcation in the land dispute.”
He continued: “I, therefore, have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that by their pleadings and evidence, the plaintiffs have established in this suit that there is an area marked for release on the land in dispute. The plaintiffs have also adduced unchallenged evidence to the effect that the Jiboro family granted them the same area marked for release.
“Based on the unchallenged testimony of PW1 and PW2, the exhibits tendered by the plaintiffs in this suit, I find as a fact that the plaintiffs have proved their case on the balance of probability. The plaintiffs’ claims set out in the statement of claim have succeeded.”
On the defendants’ counter claim, Justice Mohammed said: “The defendants have not offered credible evidence to show that they are the rightful owners of the whole land in dispute to warrant a declaration in that regard in their favour. The reason for this conclusion is contained in my earlier finding on the contradictory nature of exhibits D1 with exhibit D2. I could not also find any piece of evidence from the defendants’ portion of land and broke the defendants’ sign posts.”
He relied on Section 132 and 136 of the Evidence Act. “As there is no evidence worthy of being acted upon to prove the claims contained in the counter-claim, the said counter-claim must fail and the same has accordingly failed and it is therefore, dismissed,” he said.
When The Nation contacted the Lagos Command of the Police in whose jurisdiction Shagamu Road, Division is last Friday, the command’s image maker, Ngozi Braide, said she was going out to keep an appointment. She promised to speak on the phone.
However, a short message service (SMS) sent to her phone asking for the command’s response was not replied. When she was called, she said she would get back to the reporter. Similar message was sent to the Commissioner of Police, Umar Manko’s mobile line on Friday, but the paper is yet to get a reply.
