14/06/2025
Court sacks Bayelsa State Government, Bayelsa State Waterboard Authority, from land.
YENAGOA - The Bayelsa State High Court, sitting in Yenagoa, on Friday, 13th day of June 2025 has ordered members of Fankien compound of Okaka Epie community in Yenagoa Local Government Area of the State who sued as claimants, to take immediate possession of all that parcel of land being occupied by the State Waterboard Authority.
This is following the judgment which was delivered by Honourable Justice E. G. Umokoro of the Yenagoa High Court 7, in Suit No. BYHC/YHC/CV/248/2023 between Chief Reuben John & Ors v Bayelsa State Government & Ors.
The Attorney General of Bayelsa State and the State Waterboard Authority were sued as 2nd and 3rd defendants respectively.
The court declared members of Fankien compound as the owners of all that land including Waterboard and where the state government designated as High Density Residential Area IIB and restrained the Bayelsa State government, and its agents from interfering with the claimants right to use, enjoy, rent, lease or alienate any part of the land which forms the subject matter of the suit.
The court declared that the purported acquisition of the claimants land without notice of any acquisition served on the claimants, payment of compensation to members of the claimants family and adhering strictly to the provisions of the Land Use Act by the government of Bayelsa State is void.
The court declared that the government of Bayelsa State have no power or right to divest, alienate, prevent or disturb the claimants use of their land without validly acquiring the land from the claimants and paying compensation to the claimants as such is adverse to their ownership right.
The court also declared the continuous stay of the 3rd defendant on the land without acquiring the same or paying compensation to the claimants as trespass, illegal, unconstitutional and adverse to the claimants ownership rights.
The court awarded twenty million, five hundred thousand naira as general and exemplary damages as well as cost of the suit against the defendants.
While reading the judgment, the court noted that despite the claimants proving their tittle through traditional history, the defendants agree that Fankien compound are the traditional owners of the land in dispute as the defendants by their witnesses acknowledged the claimants as their landlord. Thus, the parties are ad idem as to the identity of the lands in dispute.
The contention of the parties was that the land was not acquired by the defendants up to date.
The claimants states that the defendant entered the land marked as parcel B since 2006 to clear same while asking the claimants to allow work to go on pending negotiations between the parties for which the defendats showed commitment by employing eight members of the claimants family to work as temporary staff of the 3rd defendant until they were dropped in 2013.
The parties held further deliberations in 2016 for which the 1st defendant assured the claimants that they will get redressed by way of compensation whose constitutional rights have been abridged.
The court in determining the issue of statute barred raised by the defendants held that the issue of limitation does not apply to the land marked as parcel A in the claimants plan as the claimants are already in possession of parcel A and the claimants reliefs with respect to trespass relates only to parcel B.
The court held with regards to parcel B, that the Limitation Law of Bayelsa State does not apply to the land marked as parcel B due to the misrepresentation of the defendants to deceive the claimants that the 1st defendant will pay compensation even after they met with the claimants in 2016
The court noted that the fact that the parties were negotiating, does not stop time from running against the claimants. However, the defence of statute barred is not sustainable, due to the alleged misrepresentation of the assurance of payment of compensation to the claimants family which however, did not come to pass. That the allegation that the claimants were earlier compensated as the land was acquired in 1997 and compensation paid in 2000 was raised for the first time in the defendant joint statement of defence.
The court held that by virtue of the reliefs of the claimants which questions the unconstitutional action of the Defendants with respect to the acquisition of properties which the claimants right has been guaranteed by the constitution itself. The procedure spelt out for the acquisition of property, must be adhered to and the right cannot be waved or limited or can it be affected by time or subject to any inferior law.
The court agrees with, and adopts the claimants counsel submission as to the procedure for acquisition of land.
The court noted that despite the claimants proving their root of title, the acknowledgement of the claimants root of title as the owners of the land by the defendants and the acknowledgement by the defendants that they derive their root of title from the claimants, the burden of proof is on the defendants, to show how the title passed to them which they failed through their witness to prove how and when the title passed to them.
In the final analysis, the court held that the defendant failed to discharge the burden of proof as the defendants witnesses gave contradictory evidence to their exhibits and could not show any notice of acquisition, revocation or payment of compensation paid to the claimants as the exhibit of the defendants, particularly, exhibit D1 and D2 fails to support their case.
DW1 admitted that documents relating to notices were not brought to the court by him.
The court held that the evidence of the Claimants is preferable, consistent and more believable than that of the defendants as the claimans evidence was in line with their pleadings and testified from their personal knowledge as against the defendant who testified based on information from unknown and extraneous sources.
Counsel to the claimants, Ebikebuna Augustine Aluzu , after the judgment, hailed the court for its bravery, and commended the court for its industry.
said the judgment has brought succur to the claimants family, even though some members who were actively farming portions of the land before the government entered the land have died while they were waiting for the government of Bayelsa State to compensate them.
Aluzu also called on the government to immediately remove the vast area of land designated as IIB from its cadastral in full compliance with the judgment.
