In a statement of claim, the children, led by Mrs Alaba Ogbe stated that their father during his lifetime owns many properties in Lagos and in other places and that at the time of the death of their father it was not all the properties belonging to their deceased father that was known to all the children.

They claimed that the 1st defendant (MRS) who is a trespasser on the property at No. 8 Macarthy Street Lagos, has refused, failed and neglected to hand over possession of the said property despite their repeated demands.

Apart from the 1st defendants, other defendants in the suit are Lagos State Development and Property Corporation, Lagos state Government and Attorney General of Lagos State.

“The claimants aver that their father, Late Chief Roberts Bomah Onyebolise exercised his ownership right on the said property unchallenged, during his life time. The claimants aver that upon a further search, it was discovered that the defendant herein is in possession of the said property without authorisation”, they stated.

As a result, the claimants are seeking for a declaration that the being the surviving children and the lawful beneficiaries of the estate of late Onyebolise are the persons entitled to the ownership and right of occupancy of the property.
They also want the court to declare that they have not transferred any of those rights of ownership or possession to the defendant or indeed any other person as well as an order for them to give up possession.

However, in its statement of defence, the 1st defendant, contends that the claimants have no locus standi to institute action as they are not the administrators of the estate of Chief Robert Bomah Onyebolise (deceased) whose alleged interest in the property in dispute they are seeking to enforce.

The oil firm claimed that they are occupying the property as a tenant or lessee of the Lagos State Development and Property Corporation (2nd defendants) which is the owner of the said property.

“The 1st defendant therefore states that the claimants have sued the wrong party in this action, since the 1st defendant is not the owner of the property which is the subject-matter of this suit”, it stated, urging the court to strike out or dismiss the suit for lack of merit.

The 2nd defendant also stated that the land which the subject matter of the suit was alongside some other properties acquired by the Lagos State Government in 1976 by virtue of Lagos State Government Notice No. 296, dated Agust 10, 1976.

“The 2nd defendant states further that the Notice of Acquisition was duly served on the occupiers of the affected land while the Notice of Acquisition was pasted on those lands whose occupiers could not be immediately located. In order to ensure that the notice of the said acquisition was properly given to those whose interests are likely to be affected, a general notice of acquisition was also published in the daily national newspaper as well as the State Government Official Gazette No. 50 vol. 9 of 1976”, they claimed, adding that the 1976 acquisition was made in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Public Land Acquisition Law cap. 113.

They argued that the statutory rights of the claimants have been extinguished as they, through their predecessors deliberately ignored the notice of acquisition by failing to put forward any claim in the property, adding that they may only be entitled to payment of compensation.

The post Family makes acquisition claim against Lagos over property appeared first on 9japroperty.

The claimants in the suit which is before Justice Abisoye Bashua of the Lagos State High Court sitting in Epe are demanding for N100 million as damages.

The suit was instituted by Messrs Francis Adesuyi, Felix Obiakor, Martin Ajayi-Obe and Peter Afenotan on behalf of themselves and all interested homeowners within the Pearl Garden Estate.
Joined in the suit as second defendant is CMB Building Maintenance and Investment Company Limited, which is in charge of providing estate management services to the claimants.

When the matter came up for hearing on Thursday, counsel to the defendants, Mr R.A. Aladesanmi told the court that they had filed an application asking the court to stay proceedings of the suit, pending the referral of the arbitration proceedings.

Aladesanmi argued that all purchases of the land entered into an arbitration agreement contained in their individual Sale and Management Agreement, adding that the appropriate place to resolve the dispute was through arbitration.
Responding to his submission, the claimants’ counsel, Mr Adeyinka Adeyemi, objected to the application, stated that some of the parties in the suit did not sign the arbitration clause.

He contented that the said agreement was entered between some of the claimants and the first respondent, noting that the second defendant (BCM) was not a party to the agreement. He told court that it was ironic that the same defendants asking for arbitration had filed notices of appeal at the Court of Appeal against a previous order of the court which restrained them from restricting the claimants from the estate.

“As at now, there is no appointed body to even conduct the arbitration. They have not taken any step to show that arbitration has commenced.‎

The arbitration is inexistent so the court cannot stay proceedings.It will be gross injustice for the matter to be referred to arbitration”, he said. After listened to their submissions, the judge subsequently adjourned rulling in till May 21,2015.

The claimants are praying for an order of the court for a declaration that the incessant harassment, restriction of movement and the imposition of arbitrary charges on them by the defendants as illegal and unlawful.

They also asked the court to declare that the refusal of the second defendant to allow them install borehole in their homes as illegal and unlawful.

The claimants also asked for: “An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, jointly and severally, their agent, privies and cronies from further demanding or collecting reticulation charges in the sum of N650,000 or any other sums from the claimants contrary to the express terms of the Deeds of Assignment and the Sale and Management Agreement.

A Mandatory Order directing the second respondent to refund to the claimants and other residents all monies collected forcefully as part or full payments of the unlawful imposition of the reticulation charges and the unilateral estate charges immediately to the respective claimants and other homeowners.”

They also asked for an Order restraining the defendants from further harassing them and also the sum of N100 million as general damages for the barricade, destruction of property and unlawful denial of the claimants access to the Estate on March 13,2013.

The post Homeowners file N100m suit against Lagos property developer appeared first on 9japroperty.