By Ijeoma Umeh
Benin City – As part of efforts to resolve a land dispute between a Petitioner and other parties, the Edo State Private Properties Protection Committee has directed that an uncle to the Petitioner should be brought before the Committee by the next hearing of the matter.
The Committee stated this during its sitting on April 7 in Government House, Benin City, as it heard 32 cases of land disputes, and also heard briefs on moves towards settlements from parties themselves.
In the case of Austin Igiebor Vs Julius Okonta Afodu and Emmanuel Ojugbeli, the Petitioner, Austin Igiebor, stated that his uncle had probably sold his inheritance, a parcel of land measuring 50ft by 200 in error and pleaded with the Committee to help him resolve the matter with the Respondents to enable him retain his inheritance.
The Petitioner’s uncle, Pa Roland Ogbomwan, had transferred title of the land to the Vendor to Emmanuel Ojugbeli who in turn transferred same to Julius Okonta.
On his part, the Respondent, Mr Julius Okonta stated he was ready to abide by the resolution reached in the last meeting where it was agreed that the entire land measuring 100ft by 200ft should be shared into two equal halves to enable each party to retain a portion of the said land.
Briefing the Committee on the terms of settlement towards recovering his own part of the land, the Respondent stated that an appeal was made to him to accept to be given another land elsewhere which he had accepted, but was shocked when the uncle to the Petitioner stated that he should pay for any land he was to be relocated to.
The Committee did not see this information as reasonable and regarded it as deliberate attempt to grab land that belonged to another.
All members of the Committee spoke up against the action, stating that the said uncle should be brought to clarify his role in the whole deal or face land grabbing charges.
In another case between Patrick Aiwurho and Aghatise Edogiawerie, the Committee directed that the Respondent, Mr Edogiawerie should bring forward the Deed of Transfer used in allegedly selling the disputed land to another party after selling same land to the Petitioner, Mr Patrick Aiwurho.
The Respondent however stated that the land he sold to the other party, a military officer who was currently out of the country, was not the same land he sold to the Petitioner, Mr Aiwurho.
He stated that he saw that the military officer had, on his own, entered into and built on the Petitioner’s land, a parcel of land measuring 50ft by 100ft which he said he sold to the Petitioner in 2018 for the sum of
#400,000.
The Petitioner however accused the Respondent, who was vendor to both him and the military personnel, of selling his land to the officer and that the buyer had erected a structure on his land and even buried his mother there.
The Respondent however insisted that the land he sold to the officer was different from the land in dispute.
In a twist, the Respondent informed the Committee that the soldier was willing to give the Petitioner his own land in exchange for the one he seized but that the Petitioner rejected and demanded for payment instead.
The Petitioner confirmed to the Committee that he would either have his original land or the monetary equivalent of his seized land.
The Committee has directed the investigative police team to carry out further investigation on the land to ascertain if the land in dispute was the same land sold to the military officer, and that the military officer should be invited before the Committee to verify how he acquired the land in dispute.
The Committee also ordered a “stop work” action through the placement of banner on the said land.
The matter was adjourned till June 5 to enable the Investigative police team carry out further investigations.
Sitting continues in Benin City.
