Background
This case arose from a dispute over a parcel of land measuring 50ft by 100ft, together with an eight-room bungalow situated at Ogbeson Quarters, Benin City. The Claimant, Mr. Edward Aikhuegbe, purchased the land in January 2001 through a deed of transfer and thereafter erected a two-bedroom flat in four places, a store, a room, and completed an existing uncompleted boys’ quarters. The land was acquired in the name of his daughter, Ovbagiagiemen Aikhuegbe, and a valid receipt (Exhibit A) was tendered.
After the death of his wife, Mrs. Patience Aikhuegbe, in March 2014 and the subsequent death of his daughter in April 2014, the Claimant’s tenants ceased paying rent. Notices to quit were served, and solicitors’ letters were exchanged. The Defendants, who are the children of the Claimant’s late wife from a prior relationship, then asserted ownership, entered the premises with police, arrested and detained the Claimant, and began collecting rent directly.
The Claimant initiated suit on November 28, 2014, seeking declarations of ownership and possession, damages of ₦1,000,000 for illegal transfer, intimidation and detention, and a perpetual injunction against further entry or interference. Despite substituted service and multiple hearing notices, the Defendants filed no Statement of Defence.
Issues
- Whether the Claimant has established his title and possession of the land and building by a preponderance of evidence.
- Whether the Defendants’ acts of collecting rent and refusing to relinquish possession constitute trespass, entitling the Claimant to damages.
- Whether the Claimant is entitled to a perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from further intrusion upon the property.
Ratio Decidendi
The court relied on the well-settled principle that failure to file a defence after valid service constitutes admission of the Plaintiff’s claim, as held in Durosaro v. Ayorinde (2005) and enshrined in Order 20(6) & (9) of the Edo State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2012. Pleadings which are not supported by evidence remain dormant, allowing the court to proceed on the uncontradicted case of the Claimant.
Court Findings
The Court found the Claimant and his witness (CW1) to be credible and truthful. Exhibit A (receipt) and other documentary evidence (Exhibits B, C & D) demonstrated the Claimant’s unbroken title, purchase, construction, and legitimate receipt of rent over many years. CW1 confirmed the sale to the Claimant, noting that the Defendants’ mother was not a purchaser.
The Defendants’ unexplained default meant their pleadings were abandoned. The Court held that the Defendants’ entry with police, arrest and detention of the Claimant, and unauthorized rent collection were unlawful and amounted to trespass and conversion.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court granted the Claimant:
- A declaration that he is the owner and in possession of the 50ft by 100ft parcel and the building thereon by deed of transfer dated 21 January 2001.
- A declaration that any further entry or intimidation by the Defendants is unlawful.
- ₦1,000,000 in damages for illegal transfer, intimidation, arrest and detention.
- A perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, servants, privies and workmen from further entering the land.
Significance
This decision underscores the importance of timely defence in civil actions and reaffirms that uncontradicted evidence of title and possession will lead to judgment on the claimant’s pleadings. It illustrates the court’s willingness to protect registered interests, deter trespass, and award damages for unlawful interference. Moreover, it highlights the application of civil procedure rules that enable swift relief where defendants default, thereby promoting judicial efficiency and reinforcing landowners’ rights in Nigerian property law.