11/05/2022
COURT DISMISSES CASE AGAINST MAKURDI DIOCESE
BY GODWIN EDEH
A high court sitting in Makurdi the Benue state capital presided over by Justice Morris Ikpambese has dismissed the case brought before the court by Tilley Gyado and sons Nigeria Limited and two others on the ground of status barred (status limitation).
The plaintiffs includes Joseph AtooTilley Gyado, Tilley Gyado and sons Nigeria limited and Two-Four-Seven Modernise limited had earlier approached the court seeking among other reliefs of court the declaration by the court that, the defendants are squatters and trespassers on the portion of the land under contention located at Number 33 old Otukpo road high level, beside Bishop Murray Hospital Makurdi, known as St Mary apparition ground.
That the court further declare that the defendants vacate and deliver vacant possession of of the land occupied by the Catholic Diocese of Makurdi. The plaintiffs represented by Joseph Atoo Tilley Gyado tendered before the court Certificate of Occupancy with number BP 691 covering the portion of land occupied by the St Mary apparition ground.
However, in a counter claim, the Catholic Diocese of Makurdi and four others who are defendants in the case, submitted before the court that, they were neither trespassers, squatters, illegal occupants nor intruders into the land under contention and affirmed the fact that the land was a gift from Pa (Dr) Jerome Tilley Gyado to the Diocese for the promotion of adoration and worship of God and for God's devine favours granted him during his life time.
And therefore seek the perpetual injunction of the court restraining the Tilley Gyado family, their heirs, agents, successors in tittle, assigned administrators and whoever from interfering with the peaceful occupation and possession of the land and that the remedy of the alleged wrongs should not be permitted or granted by the court.
The defendants ( Catholic Diocese of Makurdi) further seek the payment of #187.3M ( one hundred and eighty seven million, three hundred thousand naira) only as damages. Tendered before the court, a letter addressed to Sen.Jack Tilley Gyado dated 29th November, 2004, a letter written by Bishop Athanasius Usuu to Sen.(Dr) Jacob Tilley Gyado dated 25th August, 2012 were among other correspondences presented before the court.
Delivering his judgment, Justice Morris Ikpambese stated that, the church has been on the land in dispute since 1995 and have built major structures before Pa (Dr) Jerome Tilley Gyado died on the 23rd March, 2006 and having confirmed that the defendants came into the land lawfully, they cannot therefore be held liable for trespass or squatters and the pillars on the land is a sufficient indication of possession.
Justice Ikpambese further stressed that, the land was developed under the watchful eyes of late chief Jarome Tilley Gyado on the approval of Sen.Jack Tilley Gyado and the Diocese was allowed to construct a large block of hostel, a mechanic workshop and other Arte facts such as the giant crucifix and apparition stand of the Virgin Mary among others all with the knowledge and approval of chief (Dr) Jerome Tilley Gyado.
On the doctrine of laches, Justice Ikpambese stated that, "The doctrine connotes the neglect to assert a right or claim, which taken together with lapses of time and other circumstances causing prejudice to adverse party operate as a barrier in the court of equity ,as equity aids the vigilant and not those who slumber on their rights.In other words, the law aid the vigilant and not the indolent."
He cited section 3 of the limitation Law Cap 96 Laws of Benue state which States that "No action shall be brought before any person to recover any land after the expiration of of ten years from the date of which the right of action to him".
In addition, Justice Ikpambese stated that, even when R C Ndefo on the 7th February, 2011 threatened court action,he failed to do so for about eleven years while F T Anongo and Associates wrote on the 2nd March, 2018 totaling about 23 years (1995-2022) after the cause of action.Thus removing the right of action, enforcement and judicial relieves sought by the plaintiffs as it is outside the Ten years statutory period.
Therefore, the plaintiffs case is dismissed on the ground that it is status barred, overtaken by time and based on the evidence before the court, judgement is therefore entered in favour of the defendants accordingly.
