By Mujidat Oyewole
The Court of Appeal sitting in Ilorin has assured parties involved in a case of land ownership of fairness and justice.
The court on Wednesday heard a case of possession of land between the Kwara Government, Ikolaba family in llorin and Olam Nigeria Limited.
The presiding Judge, Justice Ahmad Olanrewaju Belgore, ruled after hearing parties that the judgment would be served and communicated soon.
Counsel to the appellant, Mr Ismail Yusuf, urged the court to adopt all arguments and briefs on his position, pleading for his prayers to be granted.
Counsel to the first respondent, Olushola Idowu (SAN), however argued that the action taken by the appellant was status barred and urged the court to uphold the judgment of the lower court.
Speaking with newsmen after the sitting, Idowu said that the land was allocated to his client in 2010 and the issue in contention started in 2011.
He noted that the action is status barred, explaining that government had taken possession of the land since 1979, while the family filed the suit in 2011.
“Law of limitation is against the appellant, after 32 years of government possession of the land, meanwhile infringement of right can be challenged within 12 years of action,” he said.
Yusuf told newsmen that on Dec. 10, 2015, the state High Court delivered a judgment in favour of the government and Olam company under the argument of delay in filing suit.
He however said government does not have legal right to take over his client property of 250 plots of land at Ogbondoroko, Asa Local Government Area of the state, without any compensation.
“The Ikolaba family was disturbed since 1989 when the federal government that requested to use the land had finished with it and the family noticed a signed board that reads ‘Kwara Agro Processing’.
“The family requested for their land in 2004 and seek for compensation, but several meetings and varieties of letter was sent to different ministries by the government on the property issue, up till 2010.”
He explained that the wrong that my client complained about was not ripe until 2010 when government advertised the same land for acquisition.
“We decided to use fresh course of action according to the principle of law which stated that injury caused can be refreshed, so there is nothing like out of time,” he said. (NAN)
