- Yakubu vs. M.W.T.A.S
- ₦ 200
Yakubu vs. M.W.T.A.S
ALHAJI ISIYAKU YAKUBU
ALHAJI ISIYAKU YAKUBU ENTERPRISES LTD.
MINISTRY OF WORKS & TRANSPORT, ADAMAWA
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND COMMISSIONER OF JUSTICE, ADAMAWA STATE
MINISTRY OF FINANCE, COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY,
DIRECTOR-GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAND
AND SURVEY GOVERNORâ€™S OFFICE, ADAMAWA STATE
ADAMAWA STATE TASK FORCE ON ENVIRONMENTAL
COURT OF APPEAL
( JOS DIVISION )
AMIRU SANUSI JCA (
IFEYINWA CECILIA NZEAKO JCA ( Read the Lead Judgment )
IKECHI FRANCIS OGBUAGU JCA
TUESDAY, 22ND MARCH, 2005
- Judgment of - Necessity of to be confined to issues raised by parties to the
- Damages awardable - Determinant of
- Double compensation - Attitude of court to
- Interest - Payment of on a debt - When accrues
- Meaning of
- Special damages - Claim for - Obligation of party claiming
- Special damages - Strict proof of required - Meaning of
- Unchallenged and uncontroverted evidence - Power of court to act on
- Unchallenged and uncontroverted evidence - Onus of proof thereof - When
DEBT RECOVERY - Interest - Interest payable on a debt - When accrues
WORDS AND PHRASES - â€˜Damagesâ€™ - Meaning of
AND PHRASES - â€˜Strict proofâ€™ - Meaning of in the context of special damages
Whether the interest rate payable by a defendant
already found to be liable to pay a certain rate of interest can be reduced to
take effect from any date predating the date of judgment.
Whether the appellants are not in law entitled to their
claim for N321,627.24 as contained in paragraph 59(3) of their amended
statement of claim especially when same was based on the interest rate already
approved both by the Governor and the L.U.A.C., and especially when the
relevant interest rate was never disputed by the respondents.
Whether the claims in paragraph 59(4) - (10) are
included in the amount approved and if they were not, whether the appellants
are not entitled to claim them as special damages in the form of paragraph
Whether the circumstances of this case are not such as
entitled the appellants to general damages as a consequential relief to the
hardship suffered by them.
Whether the learned trial Judge can rightly single out
one of the respondents to solely bear the burden of the liability in this case.
The plaintiffs (now appellants)
who had certificates of occupancy and legal titles to property and had carried
out developments on the property had their properties demolished at the
instance of the Adamawa State Task Force on Environmental Sanitation in 1984.
Following the demolition, they submitted a claim for compensation, wherein they
itemised what was demolished and the cost as well as cost of replacement. They
alleged that they had taken various bank loans to finance the developments of
the properties and due to the demolition, could neither service nor pay back
Following an assessment of the
extent of the demolition and the value of the properties destroyed the amount
of compensation payable to the appellants was fixed at N909,150.00 in 1990.
Part payment of this sum was made in 1991, leaving a balance of N623,676.29.
This sum was however later reviewed according to market value to N1,447,409.34,
which sum the respondents have refused/neglected to pay despite repeated demands
by the plaintiffs.
Consequently, the appellants
sued the respondents at the lower court for compensation for demolition of
their properties, expenses incurred, loss of earning and interest on the said
compensation for non-payment within a reasonable time or delayed payment.
In arguing their case,
appellants led oral and documentary evidence in proof of the averments in their
statement of claim. Although the respondents filed a statement of defence to
which the plaintiffs filed a reply, they never appeared at the trial, led no
evidence, nor challenged the evidence tendered by the appellants.
in his judgment granted appellantsâ€™ claims in part against the 1st respondent
alone and refused their other claims which appellants allege to be 75% of their
claims. Thus dissatisfied, the appellants have appealed to the Court of Appeal.