Between 1972 and 1974, the Government of the then South Eastern State, through the 2nd defendant compulsorily acquired a large parcel of land in Calabar; part of which was the landed property of the plaintiffs/respondents. The land was acquired originally for the purpose of establishing Calabar Campus of the University of Nigeria. When, however, it was decided to establish the University of Calabar, the land already acquired was passed on to the newly created University of Calabar. That land is where the University of Calabar now occupies.

The present dispute arose over the payment of the compensation due to the plaintiffs/respondents for the portion of their land acquired along with others for the purpose. Evidence was led to the effect that the 2nd defendant took over the acquired land at the expiration of six weeks from the date of publication of the notice of acquisition. But thereafter, efforts made by the plaintiffs to recover compensations due to them were unsuccessful. There were exchanges of letters between the plaintiffs and 1st and 2nd defendants as well as the National Universities Commission (N.U.C) on the matter. However, the plaintiffs were paid N2,188.34 sometime in 1981 as compensation for crops and economic trees found on their acquired land. That payment was made to the plaintiffs by the 2nd defendant.

When the plaintiffs found that no further payment was forthcoming, they instituted the action against the three defendants jointly and severally. One of the three witnesses called by the plaintiffs at the trial was Pastor Bassey Inyang Otu (P.W.2.) a Chartered Surveyor and Valuer engaged by the plaintiffs to value their acquired landed property. The witness said that he carried out the assignment and went on to tender the valuation reports he prepared as Exhibits 3 and 4.

According to Exhibit 3, the witness followed the principles laid down in the Public Land Acquisition (Miscellaneous Provisions) Decree, 1976 (N0. 33 of 1976: hereinafter referred to as Decree 33 of 1976), in the computation of the figures given in his valuation reports.

The witness told court that the interest rate chargeable on delayed compensation payment in 1984 was 8% but used 7% in his report (Exhibit 3). The total amount due to the plaintiffs. as contained in Exhibit 3 was N270,369 88.

The second revised report (Exhibit 4) raised the sum to N290,274.31. The difference in the figures given in both reports was the addition of interest accruable for another five years also at 7%. The court did not accept the figures on Exhibit 4 because the plaintiffs failed to amend their claim upwards as necessitated by the second report, Exhibit 4.

Eyo Efiom Ekpo Ephraim (P.W.3) was the witness who testified on behalf of the plaintiffs family. According to page 52 of the record, he told the court, inter alia, that the acquired land belonged to his family and that he had never heard anybody else contesting ownership of the land with his late father or family.

The only witness called by the 2nd and 3rd defendants was Churchill Bassey Eyo. He confirmed that the plaintiffs' land was in fact acquired as claimed by them and that they (plaintiffs) were yet to be paid compensation due to them. The delay in paying the compensation was said to be due to the delay in getting money from the requesting institution. The witness also confirmed receiving the valuation report (Exhibit 3) from the plaintiffs. The only claim the witness objected to in the valuation report was the N50,000 claimed for cost of surveys which he considered to be excessive. He concluded his evidence by saying that he had no objection to the plaintiffs being paid the amount claimed less the sum claimed for cost of survey.

Although the verdict of the lower court was against the three defendants jointly and severally, only the 1st defendant appealed against the verdict of the lower court.