NATIONAL ELECTRIC POWER AUTHORITY V. MUDASIRU AMUSA & ANOR - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

NATIONAL ELECTRIC POWER AUTHORITY V. MUDASIRU AMUSA & ANOR

LION BUILDINGS LIMITED V. M. M. SHADIPE
August 6, 2025
WILSON ETITI & ANOR V. PETER EZE OBIBI
August 6, 2025
LION BUILDINGS LIMITED V. M. M. SHADIPE
August 6, 2025
WILSON ETITI & ANOR V. PETER EZE OBIBI
August 6, 2025
Show all

NATIONAL ELECTRIC POWER AUTHORITY V. MUDASIRU AMUSA & ANOR

Legalpedia Citation: (1976) Legalpedia (SC) 33111

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Wed Dec 22, 1976

Suit Number: SC. 398/1975

CORAM


EMANUEL OBIOMA OGWUEGBU, JSC. JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT (Read the Leading Judgment)

OBASEKI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

IDIGBE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT


PARTIES


NATIONAL ELECTRIC POWER AUTHORITY APPELLANTS


RESPONDENTS


AREA(S) OF LAW



SUMMARY OF FACTS

At the hearing before the Lagos High Court, the plaintiffs testified in support of their claims. The defendants did not call any evidence and did not therefore dispute the fact of injurious affection on which the plaintiffs claims were predicated. Instead, they relied on the provisions of Section 52(1) of the Act (now section 33(1) of the Decree) as their answer to the claims. The trial judge gave judgment for the plaintiffs and awarded them the sum of N142,300.00 as compensation. The defendants appealed to the court of appeal and further to the Supreme Court.


HELD


The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.


ISSUES


The learned trial judge was clearly in error in holding, as he did, that the word “building” used in Section 33(1) of the Decree includes “land”.

That the learned trial judge, although for reasons which we are unable to support, was right in giving judgment for the plaintiffs/respondents with respect to the validity of their claim.


RATIONES DECIDENDI


THE MAXIM QUIDQUID PLANTATOR SOLO CEDIT IS STILL A GOOD LAW.


“We think that the maxim quidquid plantator solo solo cedit is still good law. It is a general rule of great antiquity and it means that whatever is affixed to the soil becomes, in contemplation of law, a part of it, and is subjected to the same rights of property as the soil itself.” Per FATAYI-WILLIAMS, JSC


CASES CITED


None.


STATUTES REFERRED TO


None.


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

Comments are closed.