A Lagos High Court has declared that a state government has the power to demolish any structure or property that has no proper permit from the state government or its agencies.

Justice Akinkunmi Idowu of the Ikeja Judicial Division made this declaration in his judgement in a case instituted by Peace Mass Transit Limited against the National Union of Road Transport Workers(NURTW). Other defendants are Mr Wale Ajilo, Chairman NURTW, Lagos State Ministry of Physical Planning and Urban Development, Lagos State Ministry of Transportation, Attorney General of Lagos State, and Biode Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited.

The bone of contention is the expanse of land at Ojota, Ikorodu Road, Lagos known as Biode Park, where the NURTW have its loading park and pick passengers to different parts of the country. NURTW is a tenant of Biode Pharmaceuticals, the bona fide owners of a half of the expanse of land. Peace Mass Transit Limited occupies the other half from where it does the same business as the NURTW, that is, transportation of passengers to and from various parts of the country.

In order that enhance its business, the plaintiff built a fence demarcating it’s portion of the land which Lagos Ministry of Physical Planning and Urban Development pulled down for lack of permit to build such a structure.

Piqued by the demolition of the fence, the plaintiff approached an Ikeja High Court seek the following reliefs:

A declaration that the claimant is the rightful owner of the piece or parcel of land lying being and situate at 426 Ikorodu Road, Ojota, along Lagos-Ibadan Expressway and which land is more particularly described and delineated as Portion 1 in survey No  3294 prepared by Olutomi Sangowara, the Surveyor General of Lagos State;

An order directing the defendants, their agents, privies, representatives, or anybody acting on their behalf to vacate forthwith the portion of the piece or parcel of land at 426  Ikorodu Road, Ojota along Lagos-Ibadan Expressway and which land is more particularly described and delineated as Portion 1 in survey No MISC 3294 prepared by Olutomi Sangowara the Surveyor General of Lagos State and which portion was assigned by the Esinlokun/Isiokun//Amusan families to the claimant;

A declaration that the action of the defendant’s in demolishing the fence erected by the claimant on the land and forcefully entering into the claimant’s premises and disrupting it’s business operation is unlawful, illegal, and constitutes unlawful trespass;

An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from entering into, trespassing upon, demolishing, destroying portion of the property at 426 Ikorodu road, Ojota along Lagos Expressway and which is more particularly described and delineated as Portion 1 in survey No MISC 3294 prepared by Olutomi Sangowara the Surveyor General of Lagos State and which portion was assigned to the Esilokun/Isiokun/Amusan families in suit No ID/95/2009;

An order directing the defendants to pay N1,200,000(One Million, Two Hundred Thousand Naira only) per day being the sum of money realized by the claimant from its transportation business from April 24, 2017 until the defendants vacate the portion of the claimant’s land at 426 Ikorodu Road, Ojota;

An order that the defendants pay the claimant a sum of N25,000,000.00(Twenty Five Million Naira) being the professional fees expended by the claimant on this suit.

The sum of N50 million(Fifty Million Naira Only) being general damages for the unlawful trespass, encroachment, demolition of fence, and disruption of the claimant’s business by the defendants.

However, the first and second defendants denied the demolition accusations, saying NURTW was not responsible for the demolition. The union averred that the claimant erected the fence due to a long standing trade dispute between the two as both parties are into transportation business.

The union claimed that it was Lagos State government that demolished the fence because the claimant did not get the approval of the 3rd and 4th defendants, the agencies of the state responsible for metropolitan lands and building.

The Union denied encroaching on the land of the claimant as it only occupies a portion granted by Lagos State and Federal Government for use as a motor park as it falls under the PHCN Tension Power line.

The 3rd-5th defendants confirmed that the fence was broken down in the interest of the public. It narrated how the agencies received a petition from concerned citizens of Ojota on August 18, 2016 to the Office of Civic Engagement and which was forwarded to the 3rd and 4th defendants on September 1, 2016. In the petition, Ojota residents complained that there’s danger to safety of lives and properties as some unknown person were creating a wall fence and structure under the high tension power line on Plot 424/426 Ikorodu Road, Ojota, Lagos.

It stated further: “The petition was investigated in accordance with the provisions of the enabling law and government policy in respect of urban development and it was discovered that the new wall fence, concrete built toilet and two stationed containers used as offices by the claimant were situated on an open place. These were found to contravene the physical development law in the state and with no evidence of planning permit prior to their development by the claimant;

The claimant was served by pasting statutory notices( contravention Notice dated September 6, 2016) Quit Notice( dated January 24, 2017) and demolition notice (dated September 17, 2017) issued by the defendants who also marked the wall fence with red oxide paint;

The claimant did not provide the requisite planning permit upon service of notices but rather responded by forwarding a Certified True Copy (CTC) of Terms of Settlement in Suit No ID/95/2009, Survey Plan LA/1678/2016/044 dated October 1,2016, undated and unregistered Deed of Assignment between Esinlokun/Isiokun/Amusan families of Oregun and Ojota and a Solicitor’s letter of December 25, 2016 stating that title to the subject land is being processed for Governor’s Consent;

The above documents relate to issue of title under the ministerial responsibility of the Ministry of Lands which is different from that of the ministry saddled with Physical Planning of the state”, it concluded.

Giving her evidence on behalf of the 6th defendant, Mrs Folashade Abimbola Ademola, a director of Biode Pharmaceutical Industries Limited , owners of the a section of the land confirmed that she regularly visits the land in question and that the first defendant mas maintained the boundaries of their allotted portion and did not encroach on other people’s boundaries. Rather, she claimed that it was the claimant that was developing and encroaching on the 5th defendant’s land without her consent and even detaining some of the 6th defendant’s tenants.

In his judgement, Justice Idowu said there seems to be no dispute over ownership of the land as none of the parties had contested the titles. According to him, where conflict arose is the demolition of the fence built by the claimant. The agencies of government responsible for physical planning of the state have confirmed that they were responsible for the demolition.

The trial judge the question to be determined is whether the demolition of the claimant’s fence is in consonance with the law. He cited the Urban and Regional Planning and Development Law, Chapter 112, Volume 10, Laws of Lagos State, 2015, and Section 27 which states: “The permit of the Planning Permit Authority will be required for any physical development in the State. He further cited Section 28 with provides that “a developer (whether private or government) will apply for a planning permit in such manner using such forms and providing such information and documents as may be prescribed by the regulations made under this law”.

He defined a planning permit according Section 102 of the law to mean “an approval or assent given for the time being to a development and includes layout or subdivision plan, building control authorizations give at construction and post construction stages”.

Quoting from the Lagos State Physical Planning Permit Regulations, 2019, Section 5 which deals with “Fencing Permit”, the judge opined that the law specifies conditions that must be met before approval. This includes an application and drawings (Architectural and or structural designs, One sun print survey plan of the subject site, Evidence of title documents, receipt of payment of prescribed fee(s).

He then said: ‘I find that the payment for fence permit is truly a step towards the application for a fence permit giving the aggregate interpretation of both the Town Planning Law and its regulations cited above and the claimant has not put into evidence the latter conveying the approval to commence the fence and I hold that the payment is only one prerequisite to support the application for the fencing permit it sought and not the approval itself”.

Justice Idowu, also citing Section 26 of the Lagos State Building Control Agency Regulations, help that “the demolition was in accordance with the provisions of the law. “There’s not evidence that the 1st,2nd,and 6th defendant’s have encroached on the portion of land belonging to the claimant and the claims for damages does not have any platform to stand”, he concluded.

Dear readers, we really need your support to keep on serving you with authoritative, truthful, and juicy stories everyday. For your support, please reach out to the editor @gavelinternational66@gmail.com