The Applicants urge this Court to declare that they are entitled to a refund for the
buses sold by the Respondent which they alleged belong to the workers/staff of
NITEL/MITEL same having been purchased from their contributions. The court has
no record to substantiate the ownership of the said 250 Buses for instance the
names in which the buses were purchased, their models, the license particulars.
These documents should be in the custody of the Applicants as alleged owners. The
only document before this Court is the letter on page 499 of the originating
application addressed to the liquidation panel seeking compensation for buses
valued at 1.25 billion Naira which does not in any way prove ownership.
It is trite law that he who alleges must prove See (FEMI FALANA & ANOR V. REP OF
BENIN & 2 ORS (2012) ECW/CCJ/JUD/02/12 pg. 34 and DAOUDA GARBA V.
REPUBLIC OF BENIN (2010) CCJELR Page 12.Para 34 & 35.) Supra.
Having not been able to prove the ownership of the said 250 buses, The Court
declare this claim unsubstantiated and therefore fails and the Court so holds.
43. Allegation of Claim of ownership of landed property by members of the
Applicants in NITEL/MITEL offices Nationwide:
The Applicants claim that many of their members own landed properties within the
premises of NITEL/MTEL nationwide which were sold and for which no
compensation was paid. It is instructive that the properties allegedly own by
members was valued at 40 billion naira in page 437 of the originating application,
while same was valued at 10 billion Naira in the letter to the liquidator on page 500.
Apart from the letter of request for payment of the landed properties made to the
liquidators attached to the initiating application on page 437, there is no proof of
ownership in the form of the certificate of occupancy, details of the size and
location of the land and the specific members who are owners considering that not
all the Applicants are alleged to own the landed property. As earlier noted,
ownership confers right to property and in the light of the fact that the Applicants
have failed to provide documentary evidence to substantiate their claim for
ownership of the landed properties, the allegation of violation of their right to
property under this head fails and the Court so holds.
20