Court voids FCDA’s lease agreement for Abuja estate

The Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court has declared void the lease granted by the Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA) in favour of Basic Properties Limited.

Basic Properties Limited had signed a lease for Plot 9, Cadastral Zone, Lokogoma District, which is part of Plot No. 6, Lokogoma District, Phase III FCDA (Plot No. LN6, Cadastral Zone C09, Lokogoma District).

The lease between Basic Properties Limited and the FCDA was executed while the lease held by the claimants, Mr Akindeji Akinade and another, was still in force.

The claimants petitioned the court to annul the lease entered into by Basic Properties, the second defendant, and the subsequent sale of plots by Saraha Homes Limited to members of the Incorporated Trustees of Lokogoma Basic Estate Owners/Residents Association.

Other defendants in the case are:

Saraha Homes Ltd (first defendant),

Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (third defendant),

Federal Capital Development Authority (fourth defendant), and

Incorporated Trustees Of Lokogoma Basic Estate Owners/Residents Association (fifth defendant).

Justice Angela Otaluka, presiding over the case, heard counsel Dr Lilian Ojimma for the claimants and the other counsel for the defendants. She dismissed the counterclaim of the Owners/Residents of Basic Estate, ruling that they had failed to conduct proper due diligence before entering into a sales agreement with Saraha Homes Limited, and therefore were trespassers on the land without a valid title.

In her judgment, the judge declared: “It is declared that the purported offer and subsequent lease created in favour of the second defendant over the area referred to as Plot 9, Cadastral Zone, Lokogoma District, comprised in Plot No. 6, Lokogoma District, Phase III FCDA (Plot No. LN6, Cadastral Zone C09, Lokogoma District) Abuja, when the Claimants’ right created by the letter of Right of Occupancy and Lease Agreement is still subsisting, is a nullity and has no effect, having been done contrary to the offer letter, Lease Agreement and the spirit, intent and provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Land Use Act.”

“It is declared that the encroachment by the first defendant (Saraha Homes) into the area comprised in Plot No. 6, Lokogoma District, Phase III FCC (Plot No. LN6, Cadastral Zone C09, Lokogoma District) Abuja, allocated to the second claimant and upon which the fifth defendant’s members acquired various interests is unlawful and constitutes acts of trespass.”

“An order is made setting aside the subsequent lease created over the area referred to as Plot 9, in Cadastral Zone C09, Lokogoma District, Abuja, comprised in Plot No. 6, Lokogoma District, Phase III FCDA (Plot No. LN6, Cadastral Zone C09, Lokogoma District) Abuja in favour of the second defendant.”

“It follows from the said findings that the entry upon the land by the first defendant was an encroachment and constitutes an act of trespass. Thus, relief (iii) equally succeeds. The general rule that where there is a wrong there should be a remedy has long been recognized as a cornerstone of any system of justice.”

“There was no reason or credible evidence adduced by the third and fourth defendants to create another subsequent lease while the previous lease between them and the claimants was still subsisting, thus creating a breach of contract. Reliefs (iv) and (v) therefore succeed.”

“From the totality of the foregoing therefore, the Claimants’ case succeeds on the preponderance of evidence, and accordingly, judgment is entered for the Claimants as the third and fourth defendants cannot create a subsequent lease in favour of the second defendant over any portion of the land comprised in Plot No. 6, Lokogoma District, Abuja, when the Claimants’ right created by the offer letter and lease Agreement is still subsisting.”

“An order is made mandating the defendants to pay the claimants the sum of N2,500,000.00 as general damages for trespass. The sum of N5,000,000.00 is ordered against the defendants and in favour of the claimants as the costs, disbursements and counsel fees associated with this suit.”