Respite has come for about 800 residents of the Federal Government-owned Transit Village on Adetokunbo Ademola Street, Victoria Island, Lagos.
Justice Mohammed Yunusa of the Federal High Court has struck out a suit instituted by two property companies, seeking to evict the residents, who are civil servants, and assume possession of the land.
In a ruling, Justice Yunusa declined jurisdiction over the counter-claim brought by the companies – United African Property Development Company (UAPDC) Plc and Transit Village Development Company Limited (TVDCL) – against an earlier suit by the residents.
The judge upheld a preliminary objection filed against the counter claim by the residents. In declining jurisdiction, the judge held that it was only the state High Court that has the powers to hear land related cases, which do not involve the Federal Government and its agencies.
Some of the residents – Mallam Isyaku Ibrahim, Mrs. C. Ogunsola, J. I. Isi and Mrs. C. J. Abara (suing by themselves and as representatives of Transit Village residents) had initiated the suit with number: FHC/L/CS/334/2010 upon information that the Federal Government has leased their quarters to UAPDC and TVDCL to jointly redevelop.
They listed the Federal Ministry of Works, Housing and Urban Development; UAPDC, Bank of Industry and TVDCL as defendants in the suit instituted by the firm of Falana and Falana Chambers. They averred in their statement of claim that some of the occupants of the quarters have lived there for over 30 years and have thei rental deductions made from their salaries for the houses over time.
The plaintiffs faulted the purported Development Lease Agreement dated January 4, 2010 in favour of the property companies, arguing that they were denied the right to first refusal as contained in circular number: SGF/19/S.47/11/371 of June 27, 2003.
They averred that those saddled with the implementation of government’s policy of disposing of Federal Government’s properties under the monetization policy, deliberately omitted the Transit Village from properties for which bids and tenders were sought, but included it in the list of desolate and unoccupied properties to be leased out for redevelopment.
The plaintiffs argued that “nowhere in the circular on monetisation was the redevelopment of residential quarters with legal sitting tenants mentioned. In the various circular published by the Fed Govt, legal sitting tenants were advised not to bid for any other Fed Govt property and thereby curtailing their rights to bid for other properties which prevented them from sourcing for alternative accommodation.”
They contended that the selling or concessioning of their quarters to both property companies as against the 800 inhabitants, amounted to distributing the wealth of the nation in a manner that ensures its concentration in the hands of few people at the expense of the common good of the majority.
The plaintiffs argued that the sale of the their abode to private companies, when they were denied the right to first denial and prevented from bidding for other government properties, amounted to a subversion of “a valid and enforceable process stipulated by the Fed Govt.”
They urged the court to revoke the sale of the Transit Village to UAPDC and TVDCL on the account that as civil servants and sitting tenants, they were denied the opportunity to participate in bidding for their various quarters.
They also sought a declaration that the purported sale of Transit Village to the companies and Bank of Industry for redevelopment is unlawful, ultra vires, null and void”.
In response, UAPDC and TVDCL filed a preliminary objection and counter claim.
They had, in their counter claim insisted on the legitimacy of the lease agreement with the government under which they were to redevelop the property and manage same for 99 years.
They argued that they went through due process, submitted bids as required and did all that were required under the law.
The counter claimants averred that the concessioning of the property to them was in line with the government’s intention of “creating a favourable environment for continued and sustainable economic and physical development for the country.”
They contended that the continued occupation of the quarters by the plaintiffs “is unfair and prejudicial” to their economic and business interests as their investments expended on leasing the land were being tied down “unnecessarily”.
They argued the court to declare the second counter-claimant,( TVDCL ) “is the lessee from the Fed Govt for a period of 99 years from the date of grant for the purpose of redevelopment of the piece and parcel of land measuring 24,149.8990 Square Meters.”
The counterclaimants also sought a declaration that TVDCL is the one validly entitled to take possession of the land, and an order granting it possession.
In an earlier ruling, Justice Charles Archibong, before who the case was initially heard, struck out the plaintiffs’ suit for want of jurisdiction, a decision the plaintiffs appealed.
Upon Archibong’s transfer from the Lagos division of the Federal High Court, Justice Yunusa took over the case. He elected to proceed with the hearing of the counter claim, and on which he ruled last Tuesday.
