n Compulaw - 1st Indigenous Digital Law Library
Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Orianzi V. AG Rivers State (2017) CLR 2(f) (SC)

Judgement delivered on February 24th 2017

Brief

  • Certificate of statutory or customary right of occupancy – Nature of
  • Customary Right of Occupancy - Effect of Land Use Act on
  • Right of occupancy - Condition precedent to exercise of Governor’s power to revoke
  • Right of Occupancy - Effect of revocation of
  • Right of Occupancy - Effect of a later grant of right of occupancy over earlier grant
  • Ownership of land – Ways of proving
  • Declaration of title to land
  • Issues not determined by trial court – Whether appellate court can delve into
  • Facts admitted – Effect of
  • Burden of proof in Civil cases – On whom lies
  • Ground of Appeal – Need to relate to the ratio decidendi of judgment
  • Preliminary objection – Need to resolve before hearing the substantive appeal
  • Section 5(2) of the Land Use Act
  • Section 5(1) of the Land Use Act.
  • Section 28(6) of the Land Use Act
  • Section 44 of the Land Use Act
  • Section 34(2) of the Land Use Act
  • Section 36(1) of the Constitution
  • Section 42(1) of the 1979 Constitution As amended

Facts

his appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt Division delivered on 5th April 2001 setting aside the judgment of the High Court of Rivers State, Port Harcourt Division delivered on 24/3/1997.

The appellant, as plaintiff at the trial Court sought the following reliefs against the respondents as per paragraph 20 of his statement of claim at pages 11 - 12 of the record.

  • a
    The plaintiff is the person entitled to the Statutory Right of occupancy of the land known as plot 46, Diobu G.R.A. Phase 1, Port Harcourt, otherwise known as and called No. 46, Obagi Street, Phase 1, G.R.A. Port Harcourt.
  • b
    The appointment of the Sanomi commission of Inquiry and the recommendation of the said Commission in respect of the aforesaid property as published in the "Commission of the Government of Rivers State on the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Allocation of plot and Sale of Abandoned Houses in Port Harcourt during the period 1st October, 1979 to 31st December, 1983 under the Chairmanship of Mr. Dickens Sanomi by the Rivers State Government, is irregular null and void and of no effect.
  • c
    The purported sale of the said property by the 2nd defendants to the 1st defendant is unconstitutional, null and void, and of no effect.
  • 2
    N10,000.00 general damages for trespass.
  • 3
    Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants their agents or servants from further trespass to the plaintiff's said property.

In stating the facts leading to this appeal, I adopt the summary of the evidence of the appellant as PW1 at the trial Court as contained in the judgment of the trial Court at pages 91 - 92 of the record:"The plaintiff testified as PW1. In his testimony he said sometime in 1981 he applied to the Committee on Government Properties to buy one of the abandoned houses. The Committee offered him the property in dispute that is No. 46 Obagi Street, G.R.A. Phase 1 Port Harcourt. He accepted the offer and paid a deposit of N10,000.00 towards the total value. He was given a receipt for the payment he made, and he was given possession of the property thereof. On 5th April 1983 the Secretary of the Government on behalf of the Rivers State Government executed an agreement with him for the sale of the property. When he went to the property, he found that Major Agbogun was living in it. He then wrote to the Brigade Commander of the Major's unit informing him of his rights in the property. The Brigade Commander wrote to the Major asking him to Pay rents to him (plaintiff).The army seized power from the civilians on 31/12/83, and by then he was a Civil Commissioner in Rivers State just for one month, all the Civil Commissioners were arrested and detained including him. He was charged with enriching himself with three properties, which included the property in dispute. He appeared before Justice Uwaifo's Panel in Lagos. The Panel went into the matters and recommended that all his plots be given back to him.

That decision was approved by the Armed Forces Ruling Council. He was released from detention on 29/9/85 and thereafter he regained possession of the property in dispute. Later, the Rivers State Government set up the Sanomi Panel to look into allocations of plots in Rivers State from 1/10/79 to 31/12/83. He was invited and he appeared before the Panel. At the conclusion of that exercise the government issued a white paper on it and the property was affected. His said property was shown in the schedule for properties to be retained as Government Quarters. Later he noticed that the property was going to be sold to Dr. Dima, and in reaction he immediately protested to the 2nd defendant against the sale.Inspite of the protest they went ahead and sold the property."

At the trial, the appellant testified on his own behalf. One witness (the 3rd respondent in this appeal) testified on behalf of the 3rd and 4th respondents. The 1st and 2nd respondents did not testify although a document was tendered and admitted in evidence through DW2, a member of staff of the 2nd respondent.

At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge entered judgment in favour of the plaintiff (now appellant) as follows:

  • 1
    It is hereby declared that the plaintiff is the person entitled to the Statutory right of occupancy of the land known as Plot 46, Diobu G.R.A. Phase 1 Port Harcourt, otherwise known as and called No.48 Obagi Street, G.R.A. Phase 1, Port Harcourt.
  • 2
    It is hereby declared that the recommendation by the Sanomi Commission of Inquiry in respect of the property in dispute in the Conclusions of the Government of Rivers State on the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Allocation of plots and Sale of Abandoned Houses in Port Harcourt, 1983 under the Chairmanship of Mr. Dickens Sanomi by the Rivers State Government is irregular, null and void and of no effect.
  • 3
    It is hereby declared that the purported sale of the said property by the 2nd Defendant to Dr. Charles Dima (deceased) is unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect.
  • 4
    The defendants shall pay to the plaintiff the sum of N300.00 general damages for trespass.
  • 5
    The defendants by themselves, their servants or agents are restrained by perpetual order of injunction from further trespass of the said property.
  • 6
    The plaintiff is entitled to costs against the defendants, which I fix at N250.00".



    • The 3rd and 4th respondents herein were dissatisfied with the judgment and appealed to the lower Court. In a considered judgment delivered on 5th April, 2001 the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial Court. The appellant is dissatisfied with this judgment and has further appealed to this Court.

Issues

Whether the Appellant had a Right of Occupancy over the disputed property...

Read More