Background
On 2013-03-06, the Claimant, Philomena Iyare, filed a writ of summons against six Defendants seeking recovery of land and enforcement of her customary right of occupancy over a parcel measuring 150ft by 200ft at Ugbighoko, Upper Ekenwan Road, Benin City. The Defendants were alleged to have trespassed, erected structures on the land, and refused to vacate. The reliefs claimed included declarations of title, nullification of transfers, orders for delivery of possession, injunctions against further trespass, and damages totaling N10,000,000.00, among other reliefs against specific Defendants for conveyance of legal estate or payment of damages.
The Defendants were served at various times between April and July 2013 but did not enter appearance or file any defence despite hearing notices. On 2014-02-27, the Court Bailiff served a Motion on Notice for default judgment under Order 20 rules 6 and 9 of the Edo State High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2012.
Issues
- Whether the Claimant is entitled to default judgment under Order 20 rule 6 (recovery of land) and rule 9 (other actions) in view of the Defendants’ failure to file defence.
- Whether the Claimant proved her entitlement to the customary right of occupancy and ownership of the disputed land.
- Whether the Court can award damages in the absence of evidence to support special and general damages claimed.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that:
- Order 20 rule 6 applies where a Defendant defaults in an action for recovery of land, entitling the Claimant to judgment for recovery of possession with costs.
- Order 20 rule 9 permits default judgment on the Statement of Claim in actions other than land recovery if the Defendant fails to file a defence.
- A Claimant seeking damages bears the onus of adducing cogent evidence for assessment; absence of such evidence precludes an award of damages.
Court Findings
The Court found that the Claimant filed her writ on 2013-03-06 and all Defendants were duly served yet none responded or entered appearance. The claim concerned title to land and thus fell squarely under Order 20 rule 6. The Claimant’s pleadings established her customary right of occupancy, the unlawful trespass by the Defendants, and nullity of any transfers made by the 1st Defendant. However, on the issue of damages, the Court noted that no witnesses or documentary evidence were presented to support the particulars of special damages totaling N3,000,000 or the general damages claimed. Reliance was placed on UTC Nigeria Ltd v. Samuel Peters (2009) and Durosaro v. Ayorinde (2005) to underscore the necessity for proof of damages claims.
Conclusion
Judgment was entered for the Claimant under Order 20 rule 6. The Court granted the following reliefs:
- Declaration of the Claimant’s customary right of occupancy over the specified land parcel.
- Declarations that the Defendants trespassed and that all sales or transfers by the 1st Defendant are null and void.
- Order directing the Defendants to vacate and deliver possession and remove structures.
- Order setting aside all transfers or purported transfers by the 1st and 6th Defendants.
- Permanent injunction restraining further trespass by the Defendants and those claiming through them.
- Order directing the 1st Defendant to convey legal estate under the deeds dated 15/1/1999 and 1/12/2000.
- Order directing the 6th Defendant to convey legal estate over her 100ft x 100ft parcel.
- Costs assessed at N100,000 in favor of the Claimant.
Claims for damages were refused for lack of evidential basis.
Significance
This decision reinforces the strict application of procedural rules on default judgment in land recovery actions under Order 20, and the mandatory requirement for specific proof when claiming damages. It underscores judicial reluctance to award unsubstantiated losses and the duty of parties to adduce credible evidence for special damages, thereby guiding litigants on compliance with procedural and evidential obligations.