An Ado Ekiti High Court has ruled against Ekiti State government that the forcible takeover of the land for the airport project and the destruction of economic trees, crops and buildings erected there were unconstitutional, unlawful, illegal, null, void and of no effect.
Justice Dele Omotoso in his judgment also ordered the payment of N5 million as general damages to the plaintiffs for the loss they suffered on the damage of their crops and economic trees.
The plaintiffs are Faluyi Ayeni and eight others who sued for themselves and on behalf of land owners and farmers of Iwajo, Aso Ayegunle Farm Settlement along Ado-Ijan Road.
The defendants are Governor Ayo Fayose, Commissioner for Works, Commissioner for Lands and Housing, and Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice.
Justice Omotoso noted that the purported revocation of the right of occupancy of the claimants to their respective parcels of land was unconstitutional, unlawful, illegal, null, and void and of no effect.
Another relief granted in favour of the plaintiffs was a declaration that the forcible entry into their farmsteads by the defendants, their agents, servants, privies and assigns on October 2, 2015, was unlawful, illegal, unconstitutional, inequitable, wreak of injustice and violation of their fundamental human rights.
The court further held that the forcible entry into the farmsteads of the claimants on October 2, 2015, and subsequent occasions to clear and remove their crops and buildings without proper enumeration of the crops thereof while purportedly acting on Notice of Revocation dated September 18, 2015, was unlawful, illegal, unconstitutional and ineffective to divest the claimants of their interest rights on their respective lands.
The court equally granted an order of injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, privies, workmen, appointees, consultants from treating the rights of occupancy of the claimants as having been revoked by virtue of the Notice of Revocation captioned Land Use Act Nigeria dated September 18, 2015.
The defendants were also restrained from forcibly entering, trespassing, coercing, intimidating, harassing or in any other manner whatsoever gaining access to the farms and landed property of the claimants.
The court also granted an injunction sought by the plaintiffs restraining the defendants from further removing, harvesting, clearing or otherwise damaging the economic crops, buildings and chattels on the land.


Ad:See How you can turn $500 into $10,000 Click HERE For Details.
SHARE