IT was victory for Sokoto State Government, when the Supreme Court of Nigeria punctures a legal battle towards reclaiming a parcel of land, acquired for public use by the state government.Alhaji Tsodo Dan Amale, the original owner of land had gone to the Sokoto State High Court, in a bid to reclaim his landed property, acquired by the state for the purpose of expanding one of its major markets in the metropolis.But it was a futile effort as the apex's court dashed the appellant's hope. He had sued Sokoto Local Government, Chairman, Sokoto Local Government and Attorney-General of Sokoto State over the piece of land.Amale's land and movable properties situate at Kofer Kade, Kama market in Sokoto metropolis were compulsorily acquired by the then military governor of Sokoto State.Following the acquisition, the appellant felt his fundamental right was breached by the act of the governor. So, the appellant sought and was granted leave to enforce his fundamental right by the High Court.Subsequently, the appellant filed a motion on notice by which he sought in the main, a declaration that the acquisition of his properties was in breach of his fundamental rights, illegal, unconstitutional, null and void. He also sought orders of injunction and award of damages.The trial court heard the appellant's application and grated the reliefs sought by the appellant.The respondents were dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, and appealed to the Court of Appeal.The Court of Appeal, on its own motion, asked the appellant's counsel to address it on whether or not the appellant's suit at the trial court could be commenced under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules. The appellant's counsel addressed the Court of Appeal on the issue raised.Thereafter, the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment. It found that the appellant's and was acquired for the purpose of expanding the cattle (Kara) Market by the Sokoto Local Government. The court also held that the appellant's action was a claim in respect of the title to land and compulsory acquisition, and that it was improperly commenced under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules.Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the respondents' appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial court.The appellant was not happy with the decision of the Court of Appeal and appealed to the Supreme Court.Two issues were raised before the Supreme Court, including:' Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it struck out the appellant's suit against the respondents on the ground that the main relief sought by the appellant was in respect of declaration of title to land, and therefore should not have been commenced under the Fundamental Right (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 1979,' Whether the appellant was adversely affected when the Court of Appeal suo motu raised the issue of the competence of the appellant's suit and heard argument from only the appellant's counsel on the issue before it reached a decision on the issue'In his lead judgment, Justice John Afolabi Fabiyi, summarized the issues thus: 'In this appeal, it is clear that that the principal issues involved are declaration of title to land and compensation for unexhausted development on the land.'He added: 'It is not for the court at this stage to decide on the merit, the propriety or otherwise of the revocation of the appellant's right of occupancy. It is enough to show that the respondents could legally revoke the grant made to the appellants.'Still commenting on the first issue, Fabiyi said: 'There is no doubt that the action of the respondents permitted by the Land Use Act which is inter vires the constitution. Nothing lawful could be held as illegal or unconstitutional. I agree with the court below that the revocation of the appellant's statutory right of occupancy, being legal, could not constitute encroachment on his fundamental right.The claim of the appellant as disclosed in his suit and the affidavit in support did not relate to one breaching his fundamental right. It is for the declaration of title to his statutory right of occupancy or for compensation for unexhausted development on the land, which should not be brought under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules. I agree that for this reason, the appellant's suit is incompetent as the main claims have nothing to do with breach or threatened breach of right to fair hearing.'Consequently, issue number one was resolved against the appellant, in favor of the respondents.Like the first issue, the second issue was decided in favor of the respondent. 'The issue, with due difference to appellant's counsel, was raked up to no avail. It ought not to be so before this court, in particular. The issue is resolved against the appellant.'In the final analysis, the Judge said the appeal lacked merit and should be dismissed. 'For the above reasons, I find that the appeal lacks merit and should be dismissed. I order accordingly and hereby affirm the judgment of the court below 'wherein the appellant's suit was struck out for want of competence. Appeal dismissed. I make no order as to costs in the prevailing circumstance.
Click here to read full news..
