Lagos demolition of property: Court fixes Feb 2 for ruling
Justice Morenike Obadina of Lagos High Court, Igbosere, has fixed February 2, 2016, for ruling on two applications in a suit brought by Mrs. Olubukunola Osomo against Lagos State Governor, Akinwunmi Ambode.
Also sued in the suit No:LD/506LM/15 are the Attorney-General of Lagos state and the Lagos State Development and Property Corporation (LSDPC).
Osomo, through her lawyer, Chief Bolaji Ayorinde (SAN), is asking the court for an order declaring that the estate of the late Kayode Fashina is the rightful owner of the property at plot 439, Karimu Giwa Street, South West Ikoyi, Lagos and registered in No 69 page 69 Volume 2432 of the Lagos Land Registry.
Besides, the claimant asked the court for an order declaring that the purported acts of trespass, interference and possession and harassment of the claimant on the property mentioned above by the defendants were unlawful, null and void and outside the scope of their powers.
The claimant asked the court to award damages in the sum of N20 million for the acts of unlawful trespass, interference with possession, threat and harassment perpetuated on the claimant’s property at plot 439, Karimu Giwa street, South West Ikoyi, Lagos.
While the matter was pending before the court, the Lagos State Government was alleged to have encroached on the land and demolished the said property without any court order.
At the resumed hearing of the case, Ayorinde, informed the court that they had an urgent application dated January 16, 2016, and filed, the same day, an order of mandatory injunction for the defendants to immediately vacate the property in dispute, restore the claimant into possession to protect the integrity of the court and to show cause why the defendants should not be found guilty for contempt of court.
But the 3rd defendant’s counsel told the court that the claimant’s applications were not ripe for hearing as they had a notice of preliminary objection, and stated that the action was a nullity, and that the court lacked the right to hear the case as it failed to follow pre-action protocol, and, also, that there was a previous judgment as regards the case. Since they are challenging jurisdiction of the court to hear this matter, the issue of jurisdiction must be determined first, the 3rd defendant’s counsel posited.
Ayorinde told the court that their application was not only to protect the claimant, but, also, the integrity of the court, therefore, the court should hear first the two applications before the 3rd defendant’s notice of preliminary objection for lack of jurisdiction, citing the case of Egbodagbe vs Okafor, a Supreme Court case, which made it clear that although challenging of jurisdiction of the court would, ordinarily, be taken first, but, in this matter, there was a new cause that arose for the demolition of the subject matter in dispute; more so, the claimant’s two pending applications are extremely ripe for hearing.
The lawyer representing 3rd defendant (LSDPC), went further to cite the case of Amobi vs Nzegwu (2004) 2 NWLR Part 1393, at page 536, where it was held that challenging of jurisdiction must be taken first before any other consideration.
After adequate consideration of the applications before the court, Justice Obadina came to the conclusion that the applications would be taken together. But would take the application challenging jurisdiction first, then the other applications as the application challenging jurisdiction is a threshold matter.
The claimant’s counsel informed the court that they had regularised their written address dated December 15, 2015 and, thereby, moved in terms. Application for regularisation was granted.
The counsel to the 3rd defendant moved his notice of preliminary objection dated November 27, 2015, asking the court to dismiss and strike out the action as the court lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the matter because the claimant failed to comply with Order 2 Rule 2 of the rules of the court as regards commencing a suit by filing along with the writ, form 01 stating the attempts the claimant had made in settling the matter out of court.
