CHIEF MADUKU WAGHOREGHOR & ORS V. JOSIAH AGHENGHEN

CORAM

MUHAMMED BELLO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

SOWEMIMO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT ,br/>

IBEKWE , JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

CHIEF MADUKU WAGHOREGHOR

CHIEF ENEVBEDIA CHANOMI(For themselves and on behalf of Effuruntor Village)

SHELL- BP PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF NIGERIA LIMITED

APPELLANTS

JOSIAH AGHENGHEN(For himself and on behalf of the people of Eruemukohwarien Village

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

DISPUTE ON LAND MATTER

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This was an appeal from the judgment delivered in the High Court where he found for the plaintiffs as per their writ which was endorsed claiming a declaration to a piece of land, and Perpetual injunction restraining the 1st defendants their servants and/or agent from paying any monies as claimed by the plaintiffs. The learned trial judge, decided to give the plaintiffs judgment as per their Statement of Claim. The appellants appealed against the decision of the trial judge in the Supreme Court.

HELD

The appeal succeeded and as allowed.

ISSUES

The learned trial judge erred in law and on the facts in failing to observe that the appellants were customary tenants.

The learned trial judge erred in law in holding that the appellants were not entitled to claim any of the compensation despite their right of user and their having been in possession at the time of acquisition even if they were not customary tenants.

The learned trial judge erred in law in holding that the appellants must adduce evidence on the basis of computing the amount of compensation payable when he should have applied the equitable doctrine of equality is equity.

Judgment is against the weight of evidence.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

DISTRIBUTION OF PROCEEDS FROM LAND

“It is sufficient that, in the exercise of our equitable jurisdiction, we consider what would be a fair distribution of the proceeds of the land, be they from lease or sale or compulsory acquisition. The main consideration is that the grantees would, by the surrender of their possessory title, lose so much more than the grantors whose reversionary interests are now quite small, if not nebulous.” Per ELIAS, CJN.