Background
On 2024-09-23, the High Court of Justice, Benin Judicial Division delivered judgment in Suit No. B/637/2021. Claimants, Pastor Osagie Ize-IYAMU and I.O. Farms Limited, challenged the purported revocation by the Governor of Edo State of their statutory rights of occupancy over large parcels of land at Ward 36/A, Amagba Village Area, Benin City. The Claimants had held four Certificates of Occupancy (Exhibits B1–B4) and developed the land extensively, erecting school buildings, piggery, fish pond, pineapple and poultry farms, a grazing field and a Farm Academy (I.O. Farms Training Institute), evidenced by brochures (Exhibits C1–C3).
On 7 July 2021, Defendants published a revocation notice in the Vanguard and Nigerian Observer newspapers (Exhibits E and K) and issued an official notice (Exhibit J), citing "overriding public interest" without specifying any public purpose. A letter dated 22 July 2021 (Exhibit L), allegedly pasted on the Claimants’ gate, purported to inform them of the revocation. Claimants contended no personal notice was given and no specific public purpose disclosed, alleging political malice and breach of due process under Section 28 of the Land Use Act and Section 36(1) of the Constitution.
Issues
The Court distilled two principal issues:
- Whether the 1st Defendant’s revocation of the Claimants’ rights of occupancy was valid in law under Section 28 and related provisions of the Land Use Act, 1978.
- Whether the Defendants are liable for trespass to the Claimants’ land following the invalid revocation.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court reaffirmed that revocation of a statutory right of occupancy is an expropriatory act to be strictly construed. Under Section 28 of the Land Use Act, a valid revocation must (a) state the specific overriding public purpose; (b) be signified by an authorized public officer; and (c) be duly served on the holder in compliance with Section 44. Publication in newspapers or pasting notices without personal service does not satisfy the statutory requirement. Any revocation failing to comply is null, void and of no effect.
Court Findings
The Judge found on the balance of probabilities that Claimants enjoyed long and undisturbed possession, held valid Certificates of Occupancy, and invested substantial capital in developing the land and training young farmers. The purported notice (Exhibit J) did not disclose any particular public purpose, rendering it constitutionally and statutorily defective. Neither Exhibit J nor Exhibit L was properly served: Exhibit L lacked personal delivery or registered mail as prescribed by Section 44, and the newspapers alone could not substitute personal service. Defendants’ witnesses (DW1 and DW2) admitted under cross-examination that the public purpose remained undisclosed and that no proper notice was afforded to Claimants.
Although Defendants argued that some title documents were irregularly obtained and lacked gubernatorial consent, the Court held that such issues were neither pleaded nor proved and could not justify the revocation. The plea of revocation itself acknowledged Claimants’ prior rights, placing the burden on Defendants to prove valid revocation, which they failed.
On trespass, Defendants admitted that government agents entered and took possession of the land (DW1 at paragraph 13), marked buildings for demolition (photographic Exhibits G1–G5) and appropriated the property for government service. With the revocation declared void, these entries constituted actionable trespass.
Conclusion
The Court resolved both issues in favour of Claimants, holding the revocation unlawful and the subsequent interference with land rights as trespass. Reliefs granted:
- Declarations invalidating the revocation notices.
- An order setting aside the revocation.
- A perpetual injunction restraining Defendants, their agents and privies from further encroachment or interference.
- General damages of ₦5,000,000.00 for trespass.
- Costs of ₦200,000.00 in favour of Claimants.
Significance
This decision underscores that governmental expropriation powers must adhere strictly to statutory and constitutional safeguards. Notice of revocation must specify the public purpose, be properly authorized and personally served. Failure to comply results in nullification of the act and liability for trespass. The case reaffirms protection of private property rights under the Land Use Act and the Constitution, and clarifies procedural requirements for compulsory acquisition in Nigeria.