CORAM

---

MUHAMMED BELLO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

ALEXANDER JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

COKER, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

SOWEMIMO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

BABALAKIN,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

CHIEF DAVID ONOTSUORAN EREKU

CHIEF MUSA A.O. EREKU

MALLORY DEDIARE (For themselves and on behalf of Ogisi family of Odion, Warri )

CHIEF MEROGUN DADSON OGBE (For himself and on behalf of the Dadson Ogbe family of Fugbe, Warri)

ITSEKIRI COMMUNAL LAND TRUSTEES

A.U. OKOTIE

APPELLANTS 

---

THE MILITARY GOVERNOR, MID-WESTERN STATE OF NIGERIA )

THE COMMISSIONER FOR WORKS, LAND AND TRANSPORT, MID-WESTERN STATE

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, MID-WESTERN STATE OF NIGERIA )

CHIEF SAM WARRI ESI

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

LANDLAW- ACQUISITION OF LAND BY GOVERNMENT

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellants land was acquired by the defendant/respondent for public use, but the defendant leased parts of the land to a private company. The appellant instituted a suit against the absolute acquisition by the defendant which was dismissed at the High Court.

 

---

HELD

---

The Supreme Court held that the notice and purported acquisition of the parcel of land by the defendant under Public Lands Acquisition Law, Cap. 105 of Western Nigeria was unconstitutional, ultra vies and void. The appeal was allowed and the judgment of the High Court set aside

 

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the learned trial Judge erred in law and on the facts in upholding the validity of the compulsory acquisition which was challenged in this action when it is clear on the evidence before him that the acquisition was not made for purpose authorized by or under Section 31 of the Constitution of the Federation.

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

PHRASES-MEANING OF “PUBLIC PURPOSE OF THE STATE”

---

“that an acquisition by the Government of the Mid-Western State for the private need of a private corporation or person is unlawful since by no stretch of the imagination can one say that the enterprises of the McDermott Overseas Inc., beneficial though it might be, can be regarded as being for “public purpose of the State.”- Per Elias, JSC

 

---

CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES

---

“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 Elias, JSC

 

---

CASES CITED

---

1. In Re Bowman, South Shields (Thames Street) Clearance Order, 1931, (1932) 2kb 621 at 633

2. Commissioner, Eastern Provinces v. S.N. Ononye & Ors (1944) 17 NLR 142

3. See Westminster Corporation v. London and North-Western Railway Corporation (1905) AC 426

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Not Available

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT