In the Supreme Court of Nigeria,Holden at Abuja,On Friday, February 10, 2012,Before their Lordships:Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen, Justice, Supreme Court;John Afolabi Fabiyi, Justice, Supreme Court;Olufunlola Oyelola Adekeye, Justice, Supreme Court;Mary Ukaego Peter-Odili,Justice, Supreme Court;BetweenMilitary governor of Lagos State,The Attorney General of Lagos StateThe Director of Town Planning & Land MattersLand Use and Allocation CommitteeSamuel Olatunde Smith (appellants)andAdebayo Adeyiga,Alhaji T.O. Ashiru,Ekundayo Kuponiyi,Alhaji Sikiru Adeyiga,Moses Adewunmi Adekoya,Samuel Onatemowo,Philips Ogunbanwo (respondents).(Suing for themselves and on behalf of other members of Shangisha Landlords' Association as per order of court Dated November 21, 1988).WHERE the party has been afforded the opportunity to put across his defence and he fails to take advantage of such an opportunity, he cannot later turn around to complain that he was denied a right to fair hearing. Hence, a party who refuses or fails to take advantage of the fair hearing process created by the court cannot turn around to accuse the court of denying him fair hearing because equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent. So held the Supreme.Court of Nigeria holden at Abuja in a unanimous leading judgment delivered by his Lordship, Justice Walter Samuel Nkanu Onneghen (JSC), his learned brothers: John Afolabi Fabiyi, Olufunlola Oyelola Adekeye, Bode Rhodes Vivour, and Mary-Ukaego Peter Odili (JJSC) (concurring while dismissing the appellants' appeal. The parties were represented by Lawal Pedro (SAN) Solicitor-General, Lagos State with him Mrs. Y. Kolawale DCR, O.K. Akerele ACSC and Justin I Jacob State Counsel for the appellants. Olumide Sofowora with him, Oge Nwakanma, Lekan Olarewafu, Adenrele Adegborioye and Moshood Abdullahim Ore for the respondents. The facts are as contained in the body of the judgment.This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, delivered on September 25, 2001. The suit was filed before the High Court of Lagos State on June 17, 1988. The seven plaintiffs now respondents in this appeal, sued in a representative capacity for themselves and on behalf of other members of Shangisha Landlords' Association as per order of court dated November 21, 1988 against the 1st-4th defendants now appellants, seeking for declaratory order as follows:' An order that members of the Shangisha Landlords' Association whose lands and/or buildings at Shangisha Village were demolished by the Lagos State government and or its servants or agents during the period of June 1984 to May 1985 are entitled to first choice preferential treatment in the allocation and/or (as soon as possible) re-allocation of their particular plots as agreed in the meeting held on the October 16, 1984 with the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Development Matters.The 5th respondent, Samuel Olatunde Smith, was joined as a defendant pursuant to the leave granted by the trial court on October 15, 1993. Parties were allowed to amend their pleadings. The summary of the claim of the plaintiff/respondents based on the averments in their pleadings was that members of the Shangisha Landlords' Association purchased various plots of land from different families, who owned the entire Shangisha Village. Shangisha Village, which situated behind Centre for Management Development, opposite the Lagos State Government Secretariat in Alausa, had been in existence for more than a century. The plaintiffs built their houses on the plots purchased by them and were in possession for several years. The plaintiffs were not served with any contravention or demolition notices by the 1st-4th defendants or their agents before they demolished their houses and developments at Shangisha Village. The demolition exercises continued from June 1984 to May 1985. The association made representation to the Governor of Lagos State culminating in several meetings held at the Office of the Permanent Secretary, Lands, Housing and Development Matters, to resolve the outcome of the demolition exercise. A panel was set up by the Lagos State governor under a principal secretary in the Governor's Office to inquire into the complaints about the demolition. Though the reports were submitted, there was no positive move over the complaint.The case of the defendants/appellants based on the averments in their pleadings was that Shangisha Village is a part of the 7,300 acres of land compulsorily acquired by the Lagos State government by Government Notice No. 236 of October 1969 published in the Lagos State official Gazette No 35 Vol. 2 of October 24, 1969. The plaintiffs/respondents were not physically on the site at the time of the acquisition. They squatted and erected buildings on the land without the knowledge and approval of the Lagos State government. As no building plans were issued to them to erect the illegal structures, contravention and demolition notices were duly served on the affected buildings and structures before the Lagos State government carried out the demolition of the illegal structures.The trial in the suit commenced in May 1993 and due to the delays caused by various interlocutory applications filed by both parties, it extended till December 29, 1993 and judgment was delivered on December 31, 1993. The learned trial judge found in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents. Being aggrieved by the judgment, the defendants filed an appeal in the Court of Appeal, Lagos.At the hearing of this appeal on the November 15, 2011, the appellants adopted and relied on the appellants' brief of argument filed on July 13, 2005. The four issues for determination read as follows:' Whether the court below was right when it held that it was not necessary for any of the parties to bring an application by way of summons for urgent hearing of the case during the court's Christmas vacation and particularly for the proceedings December dated 29 and 31, 1993;' Whether there was any oral application made by Chief A.O Adefila of counsel to the plaintiffs/respondents, that the case be heard urgently and during the court's Christmas vacation;' Whether the court was right in confirming the decision of the trial court that the defendants had agreed to allocate to the plaintiffs alternative plots of lands and that Exhibit p25 would appear to have confirmed the oral evidence of P.W! to that effect;' Whether the court properly evaluated the evidence of the plaintiffs before affirming the declaratory judgment of the trial court and granting mandatory injunction compelling the defendants to allocate 549 plots of land to the plaintiffs.The respondents adopted and relied on the brief deemed filed on June 4, 2008, wherein five issues were distilled for determination.I intend to be guided by the issues raised for determination by the appellants being succinct statements of the legal argument in this appeal. Issues one and two were argued together.TO BE CONCLUDED
Click here to read full news..
