By Vivian Okejeme
Justice Angela Otaluka of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court, Maitama, has nullified the lease agreement granted to Basic Properties Limited by the Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA).
The property firm had entered into the lease agreement in respect of Plot 9, Cadastral Zone C09, Lokogoma District.
The plot forms part of Plot No. 6, Lokogoma District, Phase III FCDA (Plot No. LN6, Cadastral Zone C09, Lokogoma District), Abuja.
According to the court, the lease agreement between Basic Properties Limited and the FCDA was executed while the lease agreement of the claimants in the suit involving Mr. Akindeji Akinade and another party was still subsisting.
The claimants had approached the court seeking to nullify the lease agreement entered into by Basic Properties Limited, the 2nd defendant in the matter, as well as 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), the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (3rd defendant), the Federal Capital Development Authority (4th defendant), and the Incorporated Trustees of Lokogoma Basic Estate Owners/Residents Association (5th defendant).
In her ruling, Justice Otaluka dismissed the counterclaim filed by the owners/residents of Basic Estate on the grounds that they failed to conduct due diligence before entering into sale agreements with Saraha Homes Limited and were 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 C09, Lokogoma District, comprised in Plot No. 6, Lokogoma District, Phase III FCDA (Plot No. LN6, Cadastral Zone C09, Lokogoma District), Abuja, while the Claimants’ rights created by the letter of Right of Occupancy and Lease Agreement were 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 FCDA (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, Cadastral Zone C09, Lokogoma District, Abuja, comprised in Plot No. 6, Lokogoma District, Phase III FCDA (Plot No. LN6, Cadastral Zone C09, Lokogoma District), Abuja, in favour of the 2nd defendant.”
The judge further held:
“It follows from the said findings that the entry upon the land by the 1st Defendant constituted an encroachment and 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, thereby creating a breach of contract. Reliefs (iv) and (v) therefore succeed.
“From the totality of the foregoing, the Claimants’ case succeeds on the preponderance of evidence, and accordingly, judgment is entered in favour of 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, while the Claimants’ rights created by the offer letter and Lease Agreement are still subsisting.
“An order is made mandating the Defendants to pay the Claimants the sum of N2.5 million as general damages for trespass.
The sum of N5 million is also awarded against the Defendants in favour of the Claimants as costs, disbursements, and counsel fees associated with this suit.”
