CHAIRMAN, L.E.D.B V. WILLIAMS & ORS.

• Pages: 211-214

CHAIRMAN, 1 .E.D.B V. WILLIAMS & ORS.



211

5



CHAIRMAN,

LE. 1).1t3 V.

WITUAMS & ORS.

CHAIRMAN, LAGOS EXECUTIVE

DEVELOPMENT BOARD



APPELLANT

10



V

1.

CHIEF AYO WILLIAMS

2.

MRS. ALEX A. WILLIAMS

3.

MRS. D.M. JOHNSON



RESPONDENTS

SUIT NO. FSC 256/1962

15

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT

BRETT,



F.J.

TAYLOR,



F.J.

BAIRMIAN,



F.J.

28th June, 1963.

20

Land Law - Land Acquisition - Compensation - Court's duty to base assessment

on fair market value - Factory in Assessment.

ISSUE:

25



1. How may a court assess, and what factors must it consider in assessing

compensation for land acquired under the Lagos Town Planning Act,

S.54(1)(a).

FACTS:

Some properties on Victoria Street (re-named Nnamdi Azikiwe Street) were ac-

30



quired by the appellants under the Lagos Town Planning Act, 1958. The 1st re-

spondent claimed for £15,500, including goodwill for both his business and his

wipe's (2nd respondent's) in respect of No.67/69. The appellants offered the

211,424 for site value at the note of £34 per square yard. The appellants had ear-

lier paid £55 per square yard for No. 21, £35 per square yard for No.65 and vari-

35



ous rates for other properties depending on whether they were bare site, island

site or corner-piece with retire frontage to another street. The trial Judge amended

an arbitrary compensation of £15,500 to the 1st respondent on the ground that the

assessment on the ground that the assessment on the various properties was ar-

bitrary. The appellants appealed. The 1st respondent argued that he ought to

40



have £55 per square yard which was the rate paid for No.21.

HELD:

The Court had a duty to make its award on an estimate of the fair market value,

which was the price a willing seller would have accepted from a willing buyer at

the material time; and the Board appellants had made out a strong case for £34

45



per sq. yd., but the claimant respondent none for claiming £35 or for having more

than £34 per sq. yd.

PER CURIAM:

If the Board appellants paid more than the fair market value in one case, that

was no reason why it should repeat the same mistake: the provisions of section 54

50



must be observed.

F. 0. Akinrele

for the Appellant.

Chief M.E.R. Okorodudu, Q.C.

(with him

W.O. Kuyatsemi)

for the 1st and 2nd

Respondents.