The court is obligated to award damages in trespass cases to compensate for any harm or loss caused by unlawful entry onto a property

LEKKI CONCESSION COMPANY LIMITED & ANOR v. LEKKI REALITY NIGERIA LIMITED.

COURT OF APPEAL
(LAGOS DIVISION)

(AJA-OTISI; BAYERO; AFFEN, JJ.CA)

BACKGROUND FACTS

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 ₦50,000,000.00 (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.

ARGUMENT

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.

In response to the Appellants contention, Learned Counsel for the Respondent argued that general damages need not be pleaded or proved as it is the loss which flows naturally from the defendant’s act and is generally presumed by law; that the manner in which general damage is quantified is by relying on what would be the opinion and judgment of a reasonable man. It was further submitted that a claim for general damages is left to the estimation of the trial Court, an Appellate Court must and will not interfere with the award of damages unless it can be established that the trial judge proceeded upon wrong principle of law or that its award was clearly an erroneous estimate since the amount was manifestly too large or too small.

DECISION OF THE COURT

In resolving the issue, the Court of Appeal held that:

It is a settled position of the law that when a claim of trespass is established and the acts establishing trespass to land are proved as in the instant Appeal, and general damages are claimed, the Court is bound to assess, quantify and award the appropriate amount. The Court of Appeal further held that general damages need not be pleaded or proved, as it is the loss which flows naturally from the defendant’s act and is generally presumed by law. The manner in which general damage is quantified is by relying on what would be the opinion and judgment of a reasonable man. The Court concluded by stating that whereby trespass, a Plaintiff has been wholly deprived of his land, the Plaintiff is to be compensated according to the value of his interest.

Issue resolved in favour of the Respondent.

This summary is fully reported at (2023) 11 CLRN in association with ALP NG & Co.
See www.clrndirect.com ; www.alp.company