Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court in Lagos will on January 21 hear a suit involving two of Nigeria’s richest men, Oba Otudeko and Aliko Dangote.
They are in court over a land measuring 10.841 square metres at the Lagos Ports Complex, known as the 5th Apapa Wharf Extension.
Otudeko, through his company, Honeywell Group Limited, is urging the court to declare that he is the rightful owner of the land by virtue of a lease agreement between his company and the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA).
But Dangote is insisting that the agreement was neither turned into a deed nor was it registered in any lands registry.
The matter was before Justice Ramat Mohammed before it was assigned to Justice Okechukwu Okeke following Mohammed’s transfer to another division.
Following Justice Okeke’s retirement last year, the case was reassigned to Justice Abang to begin de novo (a fresh).
In the suit with number FHC/L/CS/329/06, listed NPA, Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE), Dangote Industries Limited,Dangote and Greenview Development Nigeria Limited as defendants.
The claimant said NPA leased the said land to it for five years for setting up a bulk food handling facility at N2.168 million per year.
Honeywell added that in keeping with the agreement, it paid the sum as well as N290, 000 for the land survey.
The plaintiff noted that it took possession of the land to the knowledge of the defendants and began the required technical investigations.
It said its expenditure on setting up facility costing about $100 million.
The plaintiff added that despite being aware of its massive development plans on the land, the BPE allegedly suddenly suspended the pre-existing rights by concessioning NPA’s Apapa Ports Complex, including the 5th Apapa Wharf Extension to Greenview Development Limited, a company which Dangote allegedly has interest in.
Honeywell Group added that NPA and BPE latter asked it to vacate the facility to ensure smooth transfer to the new operator.
According to the claimant, Dangote and his company actually procured and induced the NPA to break the initial agreements and legal relations.The plaintiff alleged that Dangote, through his agents, harassed, threatened and ordered its officials to vacate the land.
Besides, the plaintiff argued that BPE lacked the power under its port reforms to take over and alienate NPA’s assets when the NPA Act has neither been amended.
By the alleged forceful eviction from the land, Honeywell said it lost the profit it would have made and was greatly injured in its business.
The plaintiff said due to the delay, the cost of putting up the contemplated structure rose from $100 million to $148 million.
The plaintiff is, therefore, urging the court to declare it as the land’s exclusive legal occupier.
It prayed the court to restrain the defendants from treating it as stranger or trespasser on the land.
It also wants $48 million damages, being the additional expenses required to build the bulk food handling facility.
But Dangote, in his statement of defence, said the action was frivolous, vexatious and constituted an abuse of court process.
Urging the court to dismiss the suit, the industrialist added that the action was aimed at truncating the Federal Government’s policy on the seaports.
He said it was also filed to stall the progress of work being carried out by Greenview Development on the land.
He argued that no Presidential consent was sought or obtained before the lease agreement was granted to Honeywell Group in respect of the land.
According to him, notices were given to the public in 2003 for the concessioning of all seaports/complexes by the BPE as part of the Federal Government’s privatisation and commercialisation policy.
Under the policy, Dangote said all existing leases/licenses of land at the seaports were affected, and that fresh bids were required for the concessioning of the various seaports.
The defendant added that Greenview was eventually granted the concessionaire approval by the Federal Government of Terminal E of Apapa Ports covering an area of 19.091 hectares.
Dangote said it was untrue that the plaintiff had ever been in occupation of the land known as the 5th Apapa Wharf Extension.
