The Federal Government was the plaintiff (claimant), while the occupiers or persons in occupation were named as defendants in the lawsuit.
The Lagos State High Court, Lands Division, Ikeja Judicial Division, has issued a ruling excluding No. 1, Oniru Street, Ikoyi from the properties previously granted to the Nigerian Government.
The government had been granted possession of the property through its legal representative, Messrs. G. U. Giwa & Co., in a judgment delivered on April 1, 2023.
On Monday, Hon. Justice A. M. Lawal, the presiding judge, set aside the earlier judgment after the rightful owners of the property, who had been abroad and unaware of the attachment, filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection on May 31, 2024.
The owners argued that their property was wrongly confiscated without proper diligence, leading the court to vacate the earlier ruling and recognize their rights to the property.
No 1, Oniru Street, Off Bourdillon, Ikoyi, Lagos is owned by the late Ndiokho family and was inherited from UAC.
On June 16, 2022, the Federal Government of Nigeria, through its legal representative, Messrs. G. U. Giwa & Co., filed an Originating Summons (suit no. ID/3863LMW/2022) seeking possession of the property in question.
The Federal Government was the plaintiff (claimant), while the occupiers or persons in occupation were named as defendants in the lawsuit.
The government asked the court to grant it possession of seven properties including No 1, Oniru Street, off Bourdillon, Ikoyi, Lagos. The application is grounded on the assertion that the defendants, currently in occupation of the property, are trespassers and are occupying the premises without the authorization or consent of the Federal Government, which is the rightful owner of the property.
The court while ruling on the application on April 1, 2023, granted the Federal government possession of the property in Lagos. During the proceedings, Mrs Ndiokho who lives in the house while her children live overseas suffers from dementia, and could not be served court processes.
However, upon their return from abroad following their mother's passing, the children were shockingly served a quit notice during the funeral ceremony held in her honor, a stark contrast to the solemn occasion.
Following the development, they approached the court by filing a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated May 31, 2024. While the notice of preliminary objection was still pending in court, the family was evicted from the house and their belongings were thrown out. The property was subsequently occupied by armed security agents.
However, ruling on the case on Monday, Justice Lawal removed the property from its earlier judgement, after the family satisfied the court with incontrovertible evidence that the property belongs to them.
The ruling partly reads: "I have considered the Notice of Preliminary Objection dated May 31, 2024.
“I have also considered the response of the 7th Defendant to the objection and the argument of Mr. Giwa on point of law. The four (4) Motions of the 7th Defendant were also duly considered together with the response of the Federal Government to the Motion.
“Adequate considerations were given to the Affidavit of Ownership filed by the Interviewer Ima Oflue and the response of the Federal Government to the Affidavit of ownership.
"The position of the law is that a Defendant who wants a decision to be set aside has to satisfy the Court that he was not served and not that he did not see or could not see the processes that were served.
“The explanation of the 7th Defendant is that the sole occupant of the property in issue is an aged woman who has dementia, it could be true that the aged woman may not see the processes duly pasted at the entrance of the property, it is not stated that the aged woman is abandoned to her fate in the property, no other person lives in the property is not same as no other person comes in into the property, it is only the aged woman who lives on the property means that workers and relatives comes in at necessary time to give care, support and company to the aged woman, the purpose of pasting at the entrance is to call attention of people to the document who will then inform the concerned party so that appropriate step would be taken to defend or on settle the claim.
"Newspaper publication is publication to the whole world and everyone is taken to have read and is taken to be aware of it, the fact of the 7th Defendant that everyone in the family lives abroad does not defeat the legal presumption that publication in the newspaper is service to all. This Court is not convinced that the 7th Defendant is not aware of the matter.
"The Affidavit of ownership of Ima Oflue stated that the 7th Defendant is the owner of the property known as 1, Oniru Street, off Bourdillon, Ikoyi, Lagos, the Counter-Affidavit of Esther Ige against the Affidavit of ownership does not debunk the ownership claim of Ima Oflue but rather contended that that is not the way to set aside a judgment, the way is to file an appeal according to the Claimant.
"Order 57 of the Rule of this Court is a Rule within the Rule as the Rule prescribed its own peculiarities. Order 57 is for claiming possession against strangers only; it cannot even be used against a person who is on the land as a tenant or anyone who claim to be entitled to possession, since it cannot be used against a tenant, it is then wrong to use the procedure against anyone claiming to be the owner of the property, once the Defendant alleged that he is an owner of the property in Issue, the next stage is for the Claimant and the Defendant to proof their ownership by calling evidence and going to trial.
"So the fact of ownership stated by Ima Oflue in the Affidavit of ownership and the fact of ownership equally stated by the 7th Defendant in their various Affidavits and the exhibited documents of ownership takes this matter out of the ambit of Order 57 and this Court is empowered at Order 57 Rule 8 to set aside or vary any Order made in the proceeding under Order 57.”
"Having come to the decision that the ownership claim of Ima Oflue and the 7th Defendant takes the property No 1, Oniru Street, Ikoyi out of the orbit of Order 57, the judgment entered by this Court is varied by removing No 1, Oniru Street, Ikoyi from the property which this Court granted possession to the Claimant in the judgment of April 1, 2023," the judgement further reads.
Despite the Court judgement, setting aside its earlier forfeiture order on Monday, SaharaReporters learnt on Wednesday that the Claimant had refused to vacate the property.
"A copy of the order was taken to the property yesterday for access and to return properties that were thrown on the street but the security agents Giwa posted to the property refused to vacate the property or grant access," a relation told SaharaReporters.
According to the source, when the family spoke to Mr Giwa, he claimed that he had instructed that the property should be vacated and handed over to the family.
He further stated that he was unaware of anyone continuing to occupy the property, implying that he had no knowledge of any individuals remaining in residence despite the legal proceedings.