105. With regards to the claim for furniture amounting to the sum of five
hundred and seventeen million, five hundred and seventy-seven thousand five
hundred CFA Francs (517,577,500 CFA F), the Applicant pleaded that the
said buildings were equipped with necessary furniture for their operation to
which the Respondent did not dispute either the claimed ownership or their
existence. They include modern bench tables, meeting tables, desks, cabinets,
armchairs, chairs, beds, refrigerators, televisions, printers, computers,
photocopiers and other household appliances (washing machines, water
heater, vacuum cleaner and more), others include generators and transformers.
Five (5) generators with varying capacities from 250KVA, 50 KVA, 40 KVA
while the (3) transformers had capacities between 400 KW to 150 KW. Others
fixtures include motorized land vehicles, mini Buses and other devices.
106. The Respondent objected to the grant of the compensation claimed
contending that the Applicant did not produce any valuation report in that
regard. While this assertion is true, the Court is also not unmindful that upon
entry into the school premises without notice, the Respondent immediately
changed all the locks of the buildings therein. This effectively precludes the
possibility of entry into the premises for purposes of valuation of the furniture.
In the light of the total loss of physical possession and control of the school
premises, the court is conscious of how difficult it is for the Applicant to
substantiate this claim and the burden effectively shift to the Respondent to
prove otherwise. The court relies on its previous decision wherein it held thus;
“In the instant case, The Court is of the view that the rule governing the
burden of proof must be relaxed, a burden which lies, in principle, on the
Applicant. Considering however, that the Applicant finds himself in a nearimpossible situation of being able to produce any evidence whatsoever, the
Court holds that it is only the Respondent which is a position to furnish the
materials of evidence needed by the Court.”
See STELLA IFEOMA NNALUE & 20 Ors Vs FEDERAL REPUBLICS of
Nigeria ECW/CCJ/JUD/24/15
107. In the light of the above, the Applicant is within their right to submit
the amount which in their opinion reflects the value of the furniture in question
which are in respect of the 5 schools to which the Respondent granted
34