IRABOR OVIAWE VS INTEGRATED RUBBER PRODUCTS NIGERIA LIMITED & ANOR - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

IRABOR OVIAWE VS INTEGRATED RUBBER PRODUCTS NIGERIA LIMITED & ANOR

JOHN PETER VS THE STATE
July 4, 2025
ANTHONY IDESOH & ANOR VS CHIEF PAUL ORDIA & ORS
July 4, 2025
JOHN PETER VS THE STATE
July 4, 2025
ANTHONY IDESOH & ANOR VS CHIEF PAUL ORDIA & ORS
July 4, 2025
Show all

IRABOR OVIAWE VS INTEGRATED RUBBER PRODUCTS NIGERIA LIMITED & ANOR

Legalpedia Citation: (1997) Legalpedia (SC) 41140

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

Thu Mar 6, 1997

Suit Number: SC.142/1992

CORAM


BODE RHODES -VIVOUR     JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

U. MOHAMMED

A.I. IGUH


PARTIES


IRABOR OVIAWE (By his Attorney Godwin Irabor APPELLANTS


INTEGRATED RUBBER PRODUCTS NIGERIA LIMITEDATTORNEY-GENERAL, BENDEL STATE (Now Attorney-General, Edo State) RESPONDENTS


AREA(S) OF LAW



SUMMARY OF FACTS

LAND LAW, COMPULSORY ACQUISITION, INTERPRETATION OF THE DECREE, APPEAL
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The plaintiff/appellant sued the defendant/respondent that the compulsory acquisition by the Government of Bendel State (now Edo) of the parcel of land in dispute was null and void. The Trial Court gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff. On appeal by the defendant, the Court of Appeal found in favour of the appellant. being dissatisfied the appellant has appealed to this Court.


HELD


In the result, the main appeal fails and it is dismissed. The cross-appeal succeeds and it is allowed. The respondents are entitled to the costs of this appeal and I award each of them N 1,000.00.


ISSUES


I. Whether the issue of the invalidity of the compulsory public acquisition of the land in dispute was properly raised for determination on the pleadings before the trial court. II. Whether the land in dispute was on the evidence validly compulsorily acquired, and/or required for public purposes absolutely. III. Whether the Court of Appeal was justified in allowing the appeal and dismissing the appellant’s claim. IV. Whether on the evidence and circumstances of this case, section 20 of the Public Lands Acquisition (Miscellaneous Provisions) Decree No. 33 of 1976 could be invoked with respect to the vesting of title to the land in dispute in the 2nd respondent


RATIONES DECIDENDI


CASES CITED


Lawal Adebisi and Others v. Saliu Oke (1967) NMLR 64Peenok Investments Ltd v. Hotel Presidential Ltd. (1983) 4 NCLR 122; (1982) 12 SC 1.George v. Dominion Flour Mills (1963) 1 SCNLR 117; (1963) 1 ALL NLR 71Emegokwue v. Okadigbo (1973) 4 SC 113Lords on the Sussex Peerage Claim (1844) CI & Fin 85 at 143Chief Obafemi Awolowo v. Alhaji Shehu Shagari and 2 Ors, (1979) All NLR 120Beck v. Smith (1836) 2 M & W 191 at page 195


STATUTES REFERRED TO


Land Use Decree 1978Public Lands Acquisition (Miscellaneous Provisions) Decree No. 33 of 1976|


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT 

Comments are closed.