Magodo judgment creditors wait on Supreme Court again

SUNDAY EJIKE delves into the new phase of the reclamation battle at the Supreme Court between Lagos State Government and Shangisha Landlord Association.

The decision of the Lagos State government to return to the Supreme Court for clarity on certain aspects of the apex court’s ruling compelling the state government to return 549 plots of land to Shangisha Landlords Association, has practically returned parties to where they started the litigation 34 years back.

Checks by Nigerian Tribune at the Supreme Court showed that while the state government had filed its application for a review, that is no hearing date yet and consequently, no panel in place to hear it.

Five justices of the court would be needed to decide the fresh application, and of the five justices that sat on the original panel that decided the main suit in favour of the judgment creditors, only one; Justice Mary Odili, the most senior justice of the court, is still in service.

The other four, Justices Olufunlola Oyelola Adekeye, Justices Walter Onnoghen, (who later became the CJN but eventually sacked from office by President Muhammadu Buhari), John Fabiyi, and Bode Rhodes Vivour, are no longer in service.

Justice Odili, who will be retiring in May this year, won’t also be part of the new panel as checks showed that the application would not be due for hearing before her exit.

The apex court diary, as discovered by The Jury, is fully booked to the end of July, when the annual vacation would commence.

Chief Justice of Nigeria, Tanko Mohammed, will have to empanel five new justices for the review.

When Nigerian Tribune reached out to the Chambers of Mr. Lawal Pedro, SAN, handling the brief of the state government, it was told that the lawyer to speak on the new development wasn’t available.

The Magodo land matter began on 17th of June 1988. The claimants approached the Lagos High Court to dispute the takeover of their land by then Military Governor of Lagos State. After notching two victories at the trial court and Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court, eventually delivered judgement on the matter in 2012; handing the plaintiffs, triple victories.

Ten years after the final ruling on the matter, the apex court is now being invited to further settle the knotty issues of issuance of Certificate of Occupancy and joint possession of new allocations.

 

What the Supreme Court said.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in 2012, delivered in Military Governor of Lagos State & Ors. Vs. Adebayo Adeyiga & Ors in Appeal No: SC/112/2002 affirming the judgment of Court of Appeal and High Court delivered on the 31st December, 1993 in Suit No: ID/795/88 was in favour of the original landlords of Shangisha-Magodo Scheme II, to claim 549 plots of landed property located within, Ikosi-Ketu Local Council Development Authority (LCDA), Lagos State.

In the originating summons brought pursuant to Order 113 Rules 1 and 3 of the Rule of the Supreme Court in England, also under the Supreme Court Practice, the applicants among others, asked for an order of the court for the recovery and possession of the 549 plots of land in the Shangisha Village Scheme II in Ikosi-Ketu LCDA of Kosofe Local Government of Lagos State against unknown 549 persons/occupiers of the disputed land.

The apex court had in its ruling, affirmed the judgments of the Lagos State High Court and the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, which ordered the state government to immediately allocate 549 plots to the landlords under the Shangisha/Magodo Estate Scheme 2.

The Supreme Court held that the Lagos State High Court and the Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal came to the right conclusion in 1994 and 2001 when they ordered the state government to re-allocate the same 549 plots to the landlords or allocate plots of their choices to them.

The five-man panel in a unanimous decision delivered by Justice Olufunlola Oyelola Adekeye (now retired), held that it could not disturb the concurrent findings of the trial and the appellate courts as they were premised on sound legal footings.

“In the instant appeal at this juncture, there are two concurrent findings of the two lower courts. The Supreme Court will not ordinarily disturb concurrent findings of facts made by the High Court and the Court of Appeal unless a substantial error apparent on the face of the record of proceedings is shown or when such findings are perverse. On going through the record, it is my conclusion that the court has no duty to interfere with the decision of the two lower courts,” Justice Adekeye held in the judgement.

The apex court also dismissed the complaint of the Lagos State government over the lower court’s decision to hear the case of the Shangisha Landlords and even issue a mandatory injunction against the then military government of Lagos State during the Christmas vacation, saying it amounted to no issue as the court had discretion to exercise and did so.

“In this case, the learned trial judge exercised his discretion in considering the trial of this case as a matter deserving urgency and thereby heard same during the Christmas vacation and furthermore acted judicially and judiciously in granting the mandatory injunction. Where the exercise of discretion by the trial court is in issue, an appellate court is usually reluctant to interfere with the decision except where the discretion was exercised in an arbitrary or illegal manner or without due consideration of the issues by the trial court,” she stated.

The court noted that “in the instant case, the Court of Appeal affirmed that the trial court rightly exercised its discretion during the trial of this case. This court has no reason to disagree with that conclusion.”

After reviewing the totality of the submissions made on behalf of the state government by its counsel, Lawal Pedro, in its appeal and the respondents’ submission marshalled by their lawyer, Olumide Sofowora, the apex court declared: “In sum, the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed. The judgments of the two lower courts are affirmed. The cost of this appeal is assessed as N50,000 in favour of the respondents.”

It was a unanimous decision.

 

The heart of the matter

The suit was filed before the High court of Lagos State on the 17th of June 1988. The trial in the suit commenced in May 1993 and judgment was delivered on the 31st of December 1993. There were many plaintiffs including those who sued in a representative capacity for themselves and on behalf of other members of Shangisha Landlords Association. There were four defendants in the case.

The plaintiff sought 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 16/10/84 with the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Development Matters.”

The court accepted their plea. Lagos State was unhappy and went into appeal. The judgement in appeal at the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division was delivered on 25th of September 2001. The court dismissed the appeal of Lagos State. The state’s appeal to the Supreme Court, was also unanimously dismissed.

 

The claims

The summary of the claim of the plaintiffs/respondents was that members of the Shangisha Landlords Association purchased various plots of land from the different families who owned the entire Shangisha Village. They built their houses on the plots and were in possession for several years. The Lagos State government in a demolition exercise from June 1984 to May 1985 destroyed their properties and displaced them. They claimed they were not served with any contravention or demolition notices before the demolition of their houses. After the demolition, the association made representation to the Governor of Lagos State culminating in several meetings and an agreement was reached to resolve the outcome of the demolition exercise.

Meanwhile, Lagos State claimed 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 14th October 1969 published in the Lagos State official Gazette No.35 Vol.2 of 24th October 1969. As a result of the acquisition the land became vested in the Lagos State Government by virtue of the public Land Acquisition Vesting order of 1976 published as Lagos State Legal Notice No.7 of 1976 in the Lagos State Extraordinary Gazette No.25 Vol.9 of 18th June, 1976”.

The state contended that 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 major issue then was the claim of the landlord association that Lagos State offered to each of the appellants, alternative plots of land in substitution for the land from which the respondents had been evicted. Lagos State allegedly refused to honour the agreement. The State however claimed that they only “offered alternative allocation of land to people who were legal owners of their plots unlike the respondents who were squatters. They were not physically on the land in 1969 when the land was acquired and they did not have any known legal interest in the land”

 

The exhibit

A major focus in the entire matter, was Exhibit P25. It’s a letter signed by O.P. Adeyemi (Mrs.) for Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice dated 17th of May, 1993 and sent to the Executive Secretary, Land Use and Allocation Committee, Block 13/12, The Secretariat, Ikeja.

A portion of the letter reads: “Meanwhile the government allottees could not take possession of their properties. In order to save the government from further embarrassment, you are hereby advised to find alternative plot of land for those who were physically present on the land before the demolition exercise of 1984/1985. We are not giving these people consideration as of right but just to keep them off from disturbing the government allottees. Further please, note that they should be made to pay like any allottees. Please expedite action”.

At this point, Lagos offered 50 plots; the association rejected it.

Weighing the evidence in the matter, the trial court, held that: “The issues transcended ownership of the land. It was whether or not the defendants agreed to allocate alternative plots of land to each of the 549 plaintiffs having regard to the manner in which they were evicted and their structures demolished.”

The court then went on to give an order of mandatory injunction, saying “the said defendants shall forthwith allocate 549 (five hundred and forty nine) plots to the plaintiffs in the said Shangisha village scheme in the Shangisha village aforesaid.”

The learned trial Judge, Balogun J. (Rtd) also relied on the plaintiffs/respondents unchallenged evidence to enter judgment for them in the following term: “In the end therefore and for the simple reasons I have given, I hereby enter judgment for the plaintiff’s against the defendants as follows:

A declaration 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 the first choice preferential treatment by the Lagos State Government (before any other persons) in the allocation or Re-allocation of Plots in Shangisha village and I make the order against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants (particularly the Lagos State Government and Land Use and Allocation Committee) as agreed in the meeting held on 16th October, 1984 with the Ministry of Lands Housing and Development Matters, Lagos State.

Sealing the landlords’ victory, the Supreme Court held that “Exhibit P25 and the meetings with the members of the association had committed the government to giving the respondents replacements for their plots of land. It will be inequitable to resile from such representation. As a matter of fact, Estoppel by conduct/representation can readily be invoked in the circumstance. This court appreciates the magnanimity of the Lagos State Government in the proposals to effect an amicable settlement of this matter.”

 

Owner/occupier status

Members of the Shangisha Landlords Association had bought various plots of land from different families who owned the entire Shangisha Village and built their houses on the said plots.

But without being allegedly served with any contravention or demolition notice, the then military government of the state between June 1984 and May 1985 carried out a demolition of those houses, reportedly rendering the landlords and their tenants homeless.

After the development, the association filed a complaint before the governor of Lagos State, who had a series of meeting with them at the Office of Permanent Secretary on Lands, Housing and Development Matters leading to a panel being raised by the government under a Principal Secretary in the Governor’s Office. This move however yielded little result.

Finally, the landlords took the state government to the High Court in 1988 to challenge what they believed was an unlawful demolition of their houses and usurpation of their lands by the state government and, on December 31, 1993, a High Court of Lagos state ruled in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents (landlords) and further issued an order of mandatory injunction compelling the Lagos State government to forthwith allocate 549 plots to the plaintiffs in the said Shangisha Village Scheme.