17. That the Plaintiff’s act of coming before this Court after lodging an appeal in the Court
of Appeal seems on the face to be urging this Court to set aside the ruling of the High
Court.
18. That the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case.
19. That the Plaintiff’s act of merging the claim for declaration of title with a claim for
enforcement of his fundamental human rights.
20. The Defendants urged the Court to dismiss the claim as frivolous, vexatious, baseless
and incompetent and an abuse of court process.
Plaintiff’s Response to the Defense
21. The Plaintiff denies the Defendants Defence and Statement of Claim in opposition
citing his cause of action started ninety-nine years (99) ago and that the acquisition was
unlawful and not statute barred. The Plaintiff in his claims relied on Amodu Tijani v
The Secretary, Southern Provinces (1921) Privy Council decision which dealt with
ownership of land and compensation for dispossession brought in 1921 against the
British Government. That the suit was successful and the appellant was held to be
entitled to claim compensation pursuant to the Court having determined ownership of
the property and the right to claim.
Articles alleged to have been violated by the defendants:
Article 7 (1) (a) of the African Charter on Human and People’s rights
(ACHPR)
Article 14 of the African Charter on Human and People’s rights
(ACHPR)
Article 21(1, 2, 3) of the African Charter on Human and People’s rights
(ACHPR)
Article 1 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples (UNDRIP)
Article 20 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples (UNDRIP)
Article 26 (1 & 2) of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)
Article 28 (1 & 2) of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)
Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
Article 17 (1& 2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
4