CORAM

---

COKER, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

BABALAKIN,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

IRIKEFE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

ALHAJI Y.A.O. BELLO, ETC APPELLANTS

---

RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Plaintiff claimed against the Defendant special and general damages for damage done to the plaintiffs property due to the negligence/nuisance of the defendants in the execution of building operations being carried out by the defendants on their land adjoining the plaintiffs property. The defendants claimed that the property no longer belonged to the plaintiff because it had been acquired by the L.E.D.B.

---

HELD

---

The Court held that the L.E.D.B. had not acted reasonably and certainly it did not act in good faith and that the validity of the acquisition could not be upheld.

---

ISSUES

---

None

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

FORTISSIME CONTRA PROFERENTES

---

“In such cases the provisions of the Statute are read dispassionately and effect is given to the spirit and intent of the legislation. What is required is in reality a fair and reasonable but strict construction of the statute so that what is necessarily incidental is not excluded and what is extraneous, whether manifestly or subtly, is not included.” Per COKER, JSC

---

FORTISSIME CONTRA PROFERENTES

---

“The principle on which the courts have acted from time immemorial is to construe fortissime contra proferentes any provision of the law which gives them extraordinary powers of compulsory acquisition of the properties of citizens.” Per COKER, JSC

---

CASES CITED

---

1. Westminister Corporation v. London and North-Western Railway Corporation (1905) A.C. 426

2. East Riding County Council v. Park Estate (Bridlington) Ltd. (1957) A.C. 223

3. Calloway v. The Mayor and Commonalty of London (1866) 1 A.C. 34

4. re Bowman, South Shields (Thames Street) Clearance Order, 1931 (1932) 2 K.B. 621

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. The Town Planning Act

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT