D. Household items looted/destroyed N32, 680, 000.00
E. Office structures and assets looted and destroyed N181, 952,970.00
F. Motor vehicles burnt during the Mayhem N102, 350,000.
G. 45 No of Mosque vandalized and burnt down N866, 800,000.00
H. 5 No Islamiyah (Islamic Schools) vandalized and burnt down N172, 800,000.00
I. Over 300 Market Stalls and shops destroyed at N270, 000 each N81, 000,000.00
146. The claims above are for specific/pecuniary damages for the destruction of
several houses, household items, motor vehicles, offices structures, market stalls,
mosques and Islamic schools and the Applicants annexed list which described the
number, specific amount for each item listed above as well as the addresses for the
houses, schools and mosques. The Respondent did not dispute any of these claims.
Its contention is that compensation has been paid to the Applicants. Nevertheless,
the Court notes that there was no evidence authenticating the value placed on the
said properties. In fact the report in Exhibit 26 reiterates this fact in page 19
paragraph 16(ii) when it noted that “Very few claimants submitted bills of quantities
for damaged/ burnt buildings.”
147. In the absence of evidence authenticating the value of these properties, The
Court holds that while it is unable to make an assessment of the exact value of the
properties lost, on the basis of equity the Court will award what it considers
reasonable. In reaching this decision, the Court is persuaded by the reasoning of the
European Court in the case of Esmukhambetov and Others V. Russia (Application
No.23445/03) Judgment Strasbourg 29 March 2011, para 203- 213, which has
similar facts where houses, livestock, fruit trees, and so on were destroyed following
an air raid carried out by the Respondent State on a village in Russia. In that case,
the Applicants annexed documents (certificates) which described their destroyed
possessions in detail, and also submitted a claim for compensation for their lost
household belongings, livestock and crops.
The Court held that “Seeing that the Government did not dispute the existence of
such property before the attack, the Court found it reasonable to assume that the
applicants possessed the property in question. In the absence of any independent
and conclusive evidence as to the quantity and the exact value of that property, on
the basis of principles of equity ………the Court considered it reasonable to award
each of the applicants EUR 18,000 on that account.”
41