Court examines ownership dispute over Lagos industrial scheme
By Emmanuel Badejo
TWENTY-EIGHT years after Lagos State government acquired a vast landed property for industrial purposes within Awori, Ajeromi, Apapa in Badagry, controversies over ownership tussle are yet to be abated as two firms are presently making strenuous claims to convince a state court that a fraction of the property is its own.
Lagos State government in 1981 and in line with its policy on industrialisation to encourage economic growth and provision of jobs to the unemployed, acquired a vast parcel of land, which includes the one in dispute.
Locked in the tussle at the moment over a piece of landed property lying next to Coscharis Motors in Apapa, are Mr. Emeka Agbodike, Joy Cristo Nigeria Limited and Nukeni Yusuf, who sued as head and on behalf of Osunba - Alahun family. They are first, second and third claimants while Teju Industries Limited, the Governor, Attorney General and Registrar of titles, all of Lagos State, first to fourth defendants are named as defendants.
Already, trial had since commenced in the matter before Justice Adedayo Oyebanji of the lands division, who after taken the proceedings last week, adjourned further hearing to November 19. Counsel that appeared are Messrs. Chinedu Idigo for the claimants; A. Oluwasanmi for the first defendant and Adebayo Haroun, a principal state counsel for the second to the fourth defendants.
Some of the issues that the trial Justice Oyebanji will have to answer in determining the case either way will include whether the state's Land Use and Allocation Committee had the right to decide who should be allocated what landed property at the material time and whether the said allocation was done in good or bad faith? Also, who is the rightful owner of the landed property?
The third claimant stated by a lease of September 30, 1977 and registered as 27/27/1653 and between them and Gissellee Enterprises Limited, the lessee became possessed of 35 acres of land at Agia Village, Kirikiri, Apapa, Lagos for a term of 25 years.
It was stated that part of the agreement between the lessee and the lessors is that the leased land will not be assigned to another party without the knowledge of the family but claimed that Gissellee without their consent as agreed assigned their unexpired residue in respect of three acres of their 35 acres to Teju Industries, the first defendant.
The first claimant said that on October 3, 1984, he leased a parcel of land measuring approximately one acre from the third claimant. The leased was formalised whereby the first claimant was granted the land measuring approximately 4208.13q square metres for a term of 90 years.
By Lagos State government notice No. 145 of April 10, 1981 published in the official gazette No 24 volume 20 of July 9th, 1987, the defendant revoked the rights and interests of all persons occupying or owing land in the Kirikiri area including the said 35 acres and the said three acres.
On the strength of the family consenting to its ownership of the landed property, the first claimant said that, he had exercised different acts of ownership by taking possession in 1984 and developing the subject parcel of land before the family got notice of the revocation order by the state. To ensure he maintained his ownership claim on the land, Agbodike claimed to have informed the state's land allocation committee of his interest, which led to several meetings involving himself, the original land owner and the first defendant during which the imbroglio over the land was resolved in favor of the first claimant.
Despite his interest, the first claimant said that he became aware sometimes in march 200 that the Land Use and Allocation Committee was processing an application for direct allocation by the first defendant in respect of the three acres (including the first claimant's one acre) of land.
The first claimant said in spite much efforts exerted to get government's consent on the property, the committee still refused to grant the landed property to him, but, instead granted the same to the first defendant.
Essentially, the claimants are seeking declaration of title of the one acre; a declaration that the remaining two acres of land still belongs to the Osunba-Alahun family and an order of court canceling the certificate of occupancy, which the state government granted to the first defendant after the commencement of the suit.
Teju industries claimed to have acquired title of its own piece of land described in survey plan No. OGEK/769/77 in 1978, that is, six years before the claimants, adding that there can be no question or relationship between the claimants land and its own land. The first defendant said that it has been in undisturbed possession of the property assigned to it in 1978 by Gisselle Enterprises, arguing that, it was needless for the first claimant to be complaining against a transaction, which was not a party to.
According to Teju, the committee had the right, power and discretion to allocate the land to whomsoever it deemed fit, particularly, when the usage of the landed property conforms with the state's purpose of acquisition.
Besides, the first defendant claimed to have notified the committee about its priority interest in the land over and above the first and second claimants. It said further that, the committee, which granted direct allocation to it did so in line with principle of priority of interest and public benefit.
Having denied and castigated the claims of the claimants, the first defendant want the court to declare that the prayers being sought by the plaintiffs are misconceived, which has been overtaken by events as it had already been issued the C of O of the described in survey plan No LS/O/BG397 by the Lagos State Governor in January 26, 2005. Teju Industries also wants the court to dismiss the claims of the claimants, which it said it they lack merit.
In its averment, the state government said that the land in dispute falls within the acquired land and that it was part of the state's policy to allocate acquired land to anyone who shows a good title to the land, which must also prove that it would be used for industrial purposes.
While the state said that it noted controversy over the landed property and consequently suspended further allocation with a view to resolving any crisis, which it could not attain following parties' inability to amicably resolve their differences, it stated that it was the policy of the state that C of O would only be issued to applicants who have shown title to the land and were ready to fulfill the conditions specified for the issuance of C of O. It is therefore urging the court to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims, adding they are misconceived, frivolous and embarrassing.
