Justice Angela Otaluka of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory has voided the lease created in favour of Basic Properties Limited by the Federal Capital Development Authority.
The property firm had entered into the lease agreement in respect of Plot 9, Cadastral Zone, Lokogoma District, which is a part of Plot No. 6, Lokogoma District, Phase III, FCDA, Plot No. LN6, Cadastral Zone C09, Lokogoma District, Abuja, with the Federal Capital Development Authority.
The lease agreement between Basic Properties Limited and FCDA was entered into when the lease agreement of the claimants in the suit, Mr. Akindeji Akinade and another, was still subsisting.
The claimants had approached the court to nullify the lease agreement entered into by Basic Properties, the 2nd defendant in the matter, and the subsequent sale of plots by Saraha Homes Limited to members of the Incorporated Trustees of Lokogoma Basic Estate Owners/Residents Association.
Other defendants in the matter are Saraha Homes Ltd, 1st defendant; Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, 3rd defendant; Federal Capital Development Authority, 4th defendant; and Incorporated Trustees of Lokogoma Basic Estate Owners/Residents Association, 5th defendant.
Justice Otaluka, after listening to Dr. Lilian Ojimma, counsel to the claimants, and other counsel to the defendants, dismissed the counterclaim of the owners/residents of Basic Estate on the ground that they failed to do their due diligence before entering into a sale agreement with Saraha Homes Limited and are, therefore, trespassers on the land without a valid root of title.
She held, “It is declared that the purported offer and subsequent lease created in favour of the 2nd Defendant over the area referred to as Plot 9, Cadastral Zone, Lokogoma District, comprised in Plot No. 6, Lokogoma District, Phase III, FCDA, Plot No. LN6, Cadastral Zone C09, Lokogoma District, Abuja, when the Claimants’ right created by the letter of Right of Occupancy and lease agreement is still subsisting is a nullity and of no effect, same having been done contrary to the offer letter, lease agreement and the spirit, intendment and provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Land Use Act.
“It is declared that the encroachment by the 1st Defendant, Saraha Homes, into the area comprised in Plot No. 6, Lokogoma District, Phase III, FCC, Plot No. LN6, Cadastral Zone C09, Lokogoma District, Abuja, allocated to the 2nd Claimant and upon which the 5th Defendant’s members acquired various interests is unlawful and constitutes acts of trespass.
“An order is made setting aside the subsequent lease created over the area referred to as Plot 9, in Cadastral Zone C09, Lokogoma District, Abuja, comprised in Plot No. 6, Lokogoma District, Phase III, FCD, Plot No. LN6, Cadastral Zone C09, Lokogoma District, Abuja, in favour of the 2nd defendant.”
She further held, “It follows from the said findings, therefore, that the entering upon the land by the 1st Defendant was an encroachment and constitutes an act of trespass. Thus, relief (iii) equally succeeds. The general rule that where there is a wrong there should be a remedy has long been recognised as a cornerstone of any system of justice.
“There was no reason or credible evidence adduced by the 3rd and 4th Defendants to create another subsequent lease while the previous lease between them and the Claimants was still subsisting, thus creating a breach of contract. Reliefs (iv) and (v) therefore succeed.
“From the totality of the foregoing, therefore, the Claimants’ case succeeds on the preponderance of evidence, and accordingly, judgment is entered for the Claimants as the 3rd and 4th Defendants cannot create a subsequent lease in favour of the 2nd Defendant over any portion of the land comprised in Plot No. 6, Lokogoma District, Abuja, when the Claimants’ right created by the offer letter and lease agreement is still subsisting.
“An order is made mandating the Defendants to pay the Claimants the sum of N2,500,000.00 as general damages for trespass. The sum of N5,000,000.00 is ordered against the Defendants and in favour of the Claimants as the costs, disbursements and counsel fees associated with this suit.”