Background
On 2021-12-17, Barr (Mrs.) F.A. Edokpayi filed Suit No. B/1181/2021 in the High Court of Justice of Edo State, Benin Judicial Division, seeking a declaration of title, trespass reliefs, removal of structures, damages, and perpetual injunction against unnamed intruders on a 200ft by 200ft parcel of land (Plot 136) at Government Layout, Evboriaria, Benin City. The land was originally allocated by Edo State Government in 1992 to her late husband, Hon. Justice M.I. Edokpayi, who obtained a Certificate of Occupancy in 1997 (Exhibit A). Following his death in November 2009, the Claimant asserted that persons unknown, encouraged by local community members, trespassed and erected structures on the property.
Issues
The Court distilled a single issue for determination:
- Whether the Claimant proved her entitlement to the reliefs sought based on the unchallenged evidence adduced.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court applied settled principles of land title and trespass law in Nigeria:
- A Certificate of Occupancy is prima facie proof of title and remains binding until set aside. (Ilona v Idakwo (2003); Madu v Madu (2006))
- Unchallenged evidence retains probative value; where a suit is undefended, minimum proof suffices, so long as credible and cogent (Monkom v Odili (2010); Gonzee v NERDC (2005)).
- Trespass is any unauthorized interference with exclusive possession (Jiaza v Bamgbose (1999); Orok v Ikpeme (2017)).
- Once trespass is established, orders for removal of structures and perpetual injunctions are appropriate remedies (Adegbite v Ogunfaolu (1990); Danjuma v Nasiru (2015)).
- The measure of general damages for trespass is compensatory, assessing the claimant’s expense and inconvenience in restoring the land (Chevron v Omoregha; UBN v Odusote Bookstores (1995)).
Court Findings
Title and Possession: The Claimant’s unchallenged Exhibit A (Certificate of Occupancy) and Exhibit A2 (Master Plan) conclusively established her title and exclusive possession of the land. No evidence was presented by the Defendants to dispute these documents.
Trespass: Photographs (Exhibits C1–C3) confirmed unauthorized structures built by the Defendants, constituting trespass. The Claimant’s evidence of possession prior to encroachment was credible and unrebutted.
Removal of Structures and Injunction: Given the established trespass, the Court held that the Defendants must remove their constructions and be restrained from further intrusions.
General Damages: The Court acknowledged that the Claimant would incur substantial expenses to demolish and clear the structures. In exercise of its discretion, it assessed reasonable general damages to compensate for this cost and the alteration of the land’s intended use.
Conclusion
The Court resolved the sole issue in favor of the Claimant, granting the following reliefs:
- Declaration that the disputed plot is the property of the late Hon. Justice M.I. Edokpayi and now of his Estate.
- Declaration that the Defendants are trespassers.
- Order for the removal of all structures erected by the Defendants.
- Award of ₦3,000,000.00 as general damages for trespass and alteration.
- Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents or assigns from further trespass or erection of structures.
The Defendants were also ordered to pay the Claimant’s costs of ₦200,000.00.
Significance
This decision reinforces key doctrines in Nigerian land law: the binding effect of a Certificate of Occupancy, the probative value of unchallenged evidence in undefended suits, and the remedial scope for trespass. It underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protect estate rights of deceased public officers and to ensure that title documents remain effective shields against illicit encroachments.