- Chiadi vs. Aggo
- ₦ 200
Chiadi vs. Aggo
MRS. GRACE CHIADI
MR. HAMILTON CHIADI
( Administratix and Administrator of Estate
of Late Anthony Onyegbuna Chiadi)
MRS. DEBORAH AGGO
RIVERS STATE HOUSING
AND PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
COURT OF APPEAL
( PORT HARCOURT DIVISION )
MICHAEL EYARUOMA AKPIROROH, JCA ( Presided )
ABOYI JOHN IKONGBEH, JCA
DAVID ADEDOYIN ADENIJI, JCA ( Read the Lead Judgment )
10TH APRIL, 2003
COURT - Attitude of to
expropriation of movable or immovable properties or any interest therein
LAND LAW - Acquisition - Extra-judicial
acquisition of property - Effect of
LAND LAW -
Expropriation of movable or immovable properties or any interest therein -
Attitude of courts thereto
LAND LAW - Lease
agreement - Surrender by operation of law - When arise
LAND LAW - States Land
Law Cap. 122, Laws of Eastern State of Nigeria - Section 10 thereof - Whether unconstitutional
in view of the mode of passing state land with buildings and improvements
erected on it on the determination of any lease agreement to the state under
same STATUTE - Expropriatory statutes - How construed
STATUTE - States Land
Law Cap. 122, Laws of Eastern State of Nigeria Section 10 thereof - Whether
unconstitutional in view of the mode of passing state land with buildings and
improvements erected on it on the determination of any lease agreement to the
state under same
Whether the 2nd and 3rd defendants/respondents had the
right to sell the property in dispute..
The legal effect of exhibit D (The Instrument of
Who is in possession?
Who brought the property to its present state?
Anthony Onyegbuna Chiadi, bought the reversion of a lease in his lifetime from
one Chukwuma Nwokedi on 24th January, 1964 . He put some uncompleted structures
on the land before the war and had to abandon the project during the civil war.
In 1973, he obtained a certificate of release of the property issued (to him)
by the Rivers State Abandoned Property Authority (exhibit D). He did not
however go back to the land as he was residing in Lagos till he died in 1988.
Before his death however he applied for the renewal of the lease but did not
succeed in getting one till his demise.
death, his wife, the 1st plaintiff and son, the 2nd plaintiff as Administratrix
and Administrator of the estate of the deceased found the 1st defendant/respondent
on the land. She claimed that she bought the property from the Rivers State
Government. She continued to live in the property and in fact put tenants in
sued the respondents in the Rivers State High Court sitting at Port Harcourt claiming
the following reliefs:
Declaration that the Sale Agreement made between the defendants, registered as
No. 9 page 9 volume 96 (9/9/96) Lands Registry Office, Port Harcourt dated 12th
January, 1983 is null and void and of no effect whatsoever, in that the said
document does not confer any legal title in accordance with Land Use Act, 1978.
Possession of the said property (building) Plot F,
Block 151 municipally known as No. 99, Victoria Street.
Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants jointly
and severally, their agents, privies and/or servants from interference with the
said property (building) without the consent or approval of the plaintiffs.
An order that the first defendant so account for all
rents collected on the said building or property from the 12 th January, 1983
till judgment is given in the suit.
Declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to be
issued with statutory rights of occupancy by virtue of deed of assignment
registered as No. 46, page 46 volume 578 (46/46/875) Lands Registry, Enugu, now
Lands Registry Office, Port Harcourt and which building was released to the
plaintiffs by Instrument of Transfer on the order of the then Military Governor
on 5th April, 1973 vested in the plaintiffs rights and interest akin to
certificate of occupancy.
â€˜The plaintiffs claim jointly
and severally the sum of N850,000.00 (eight hundred and fifty thousand naira
only) being value of the said building which the first defendant took
possession or title (not conceded) by the act of the second and third
defendant, which building the defendant have not paid and/or replacement value
conclusion of the trial, the trial court dismissed the appellantsâ€™ claim in its
Dissatisfied, the appellants have appealed to the Court of