enshrined in article 21 (2) of the ACHPR article 20 (1) and 28 of the UNDRIP, article
8 of the UDHR and article 2 (3) of the ICCPR.
7. Any other orders.
SUMMARY OF FACTS
Plaintiff’s Case
8. The Plaintiff, Chief Ambrose Osuan, the Ousan of Benin Kingdom, has brought a claim
against the Defendants on behalf of himself and all the members of the Osuan family
of Benin Kingdom.
9. The Plaintiff asserts that his family are traditional owners and dwellers of the land and
estate located behind the Moat (Iyeke Iya) having been given the same about 400 years
ago. That their family has lived on this land until it was forcefully taken from them by
the British Colonial Government.
10. That the land formed family farms and plantations for food and cash crops as well as
botanical gardens on the same. That this piece of land, which they had ownership of,
was forcefully acquired by the British in 1897. That whilst the land was acquired by the
British Colonial Government, the cadastral mapping of 1914 and 1918 Cadastral
Survey Maps of Benin Province (BE.5) and European Reservation (BE.6) delineated
the said land as Chief Osuan Farms.
11. That the great grandfather of the Plaintiff tried to re-claim the acquired land but failed
as the Plaintiff claims his lack of education impeded his claim. The Plaintiff asserts that
he sought judicial redress in the High Court in Benin City in 2013 but judgment was
entered against him. He further filed an appeal in the Court of Appeal and the
proceedings are still pending.
DEFENDANT’S CASE
12. The Defendants filed a motion pursuant to article 35 (2) and article 77 (1) of the Rules
for the Court to hear and grant and order for extension of time to file the memorandum
of conditional appearance, statement of Defence and Preliminary objection. This was
supported by an affidavit.
13. The Defendants made the following averments in support of their case that the land in
question is not the property of the Plaintiff neither was it the property of the Plaintiff’s
forefathers as claimed.
14. The Defendant averred that the Plaintiff lacked the competence to institute the present
action.
15. The Defendant averred that the cause of action spanned over ninety-eight (98) years.
16. That the Plaintiff’s claim of title to the disputed land is statute barred and cannot be
adjudicated upon.
3