LEKKI CONCESSION COMPANY LIMITED; HI-TECH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
LIMITED v. LEKKI REALITY NIGERIA LIMITED.
COURT OF APPEAL (LAGOS DIVISION)
(AJA-OTISI; BAYERO; AFFEN, JJ.CA)
Lekki Reality Nigeria Limited (Respondent) by virtue of a Deed of Assignment executed between it and the representative of the Ojomu Chieftaincy Family of Ajuran in Eti Osa Local Government, purchased a parcel of land situated at Poroku Village along Lekki - Epe Express Way, wherein it perfected its title and went into possession of the land and to the effect erected a fence around the perimeters of its land, developed a raft foundation on the land, sand-filled same, and obtained
building approvals and developed a building on the piece of land. The Respondent alleged to have been enjoying quiet and peaceful possession until Lekki Concession Company Limited (1st Appellant) acting through Hi-Tech Construction Company Limited (2nd Appellant), trespassed into the Respondent's land on the ground that it had obtained title to the land by virtue of its contractual agreement with the Lagos State Government. On this note, the Respondent instituted an action against the Appellants for trespass to its land. At the conclusion of the hearing before the trial Court, a considered Judgment was delivered in favour of the Respondent, and the sum N50,000,000.00 (Fifty Million Naira) was awarded to the Respondent as general damages. The Appellants being dissatisfied with the Judgment of the trial Court appealed to the Court of Appeal. One of the issues for determination is: Whether the lower Court rightly assessed damages in the
sum of N50,000,000.00 (Fifty Million Naira) against the Appellants having made factual findings that the Appellants were responsible for the demolition of the Respondent's building and the excavation of sand from the Respondent's land thereby entitling the Respondent to the award of damages as set out in its claim.
Learned Counsel for the Appellants argued that the unlawful revocation of the disputed land as alleged by the Respondent was an exercise carried out by the Lagos State Government and not the Appellants, and since the revocation of the right of occupancy over the disputed land was an act carried out by the Lagos State Government before the entry of the Appellants on the disputed land, the trial court should not have assessed damages against the Appellants on the basis of the cost of replacement of the disputed land. That the trial court made a factual determination to the effect that the Appellants are liable for trespass for mere entry on the disputed land, damages can only be assessed nominally against the Appellants.