site logo
Skip to case content
Case Digest

DAKOUR VS. LAGOS STATE DEVELOPMENT & PROPERTY CORPORATION (2003)

Court of Appeal (Lagos Division)

Coram
  • Adenekan Ademola, JCA
  • Ephraim Omorose Ibukun Akpata, JCA
  • Umaru Atu Kalgo, JCA
Parties

Appellants:

  • Josephine Dakour (for herself and as Attorney of Georgette Matta and Jeannette Tabet)
  • Henry Allam (Attorney of Aziz Assad Taya)

Respondents:

  • Lagos State Development and Property Corporation
  • Adonis Stores
Suit number
CA/L/153/88
Delivered on

Background

This appeal arose from a ruling delivered on July 23, 1986, by the High Court of Lagos State concerning a dispute over the property located at 78, Nnamdi Azikiwe Street, Lagos, previously 78 Victoria Street. The appellants, representing the claimants, sought to determine their entitlement to rent from the property, which they claimed had not been validly acquired by the second claimant, the Lagos State Development and Property Corporation (LSDPC).

Issues

The case presented several key issues for determination:

  1. Whether the property was validly acquired under the provisions of the Lagos Town Planning Ordinance, Cap. 95, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria.
  2. Whether the notice of acquisition was effectively communicated to the claimants.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal's ruling established significant legal principles regarding the procedures for compulsory land acquisition:

  1. The necessity for personal service of acquisition notices to all claimants, noting that knowledge of an acquisition by one claimant does not constitute notice to others.
  2. The importance of an 'appointed day' in the scheme under which land is acquired, without which the acquisition cannot be considered legally valid.

Court Findings

The Court found that:

  1. The notice of acquisition was not validly served on the appellants.
  2. There was no evidence of an 'appointed day' for the vesting of the property, rendering the purported acquisition null and void.
  3. As a result of the invalid acquisition, the appellants were entitled to collect rents from the property.

Conclusion

The appeal was allowed, and the lower court's decision was set aside. The ruling confirmed that the acquisition of the property was invalid due to failure to serve required notices, leading to the conclusion that the appellants retained rights to the property.

Significance

This case is significant as it underscores the necessity for strict compliance with statutory requirements in compulsory acquisition proceedings. The ruling clarifies the legal framework governing land acquisition and the rights of property owners, emphasizing that non-compliance can invalidate the acquisition process.

Counsel:

  • Prof. M. I. Jegede (for the Appellant)
  • Kola Awodein (for 2nd Appellant)