CaseLaw
Fed. Comm of Works & Housing V. Lababedi (1977) CLR 11(d) (SC)
Judgement delivered on November 25th 1977
Brief
Facts
Following the receipt of claims for compensation by 16 claimants in respect of land situate at Yaba East, Lagos Mainland acquired by the Federal Government by Notice Nos. 2444 of 22nd December, 1962 and 131 of 10th January, 1964 under the Public Lands Acquisition Act Cap.167, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, the Federal Commissioner for Works and Housing took out an Originating Summons in the High Court of Justice of Lagos State on the 14th day of July, 1970 for the determination by the Court of the question to wit:
This parcel of land acquired is the land on which the buildings of Lagos Univer¬sity at Akoka now stand and it was acquired specifically for that public purpose the establishment of Lagos University.
Pursuant to an order made by the Court, each claimant filed his statement of interest in the land acquired and it turned out, from a close study of the schedule of claims filed by the applicants that the 14th claimant who is the appellant herein and the 16th claimant who is the 2nd respondent herein made conflicting claims to substantially the same parcel of land; more particularly, the 16th claimant was claiming to be entitled to compensation in respect of 65.4 acres comprising par¬cel number 57 while the 14th claimant claimed to be entitled to compensation in respect of 70,508 acres comprising parcel number 82.
Apart from the interests of the 16th claimant/respondent, the interests of the other claimants did not conflict with the interests of the 14th claimant/appellant. The 14th claimant traced his root of title to the 1st Oloto and pleaded acts of owner¬ship.
The 16th claimant on the other hand, while giving as his root of title the Oloto Chieftaincy family, pleaded (that he acquired his interest only in 1957 from that family and has since been in peaceful continuous and physical possession of the said land)
The 16th claimant supported his evidence of payment for the land with photo-copy of receipt Exhibit 5 on the ground that the original had been stolen. The Oloto family was not called to testify and the 16th claimant admitted that he had not com¬pleted the survey of the area and that the land sold had not been conveyed to him.
The trial Judge in the erroneous belief that the 56 acres referred to in Exhibit 6 was the area of conflicting claims and that Exhibit 6 was an evidence of title, directed that compensation for the 56 acres be paid to the 16th claimant while the 14th claimant was to get compensation for only 14.59 acres.