WILLIAMS V. KAMSON

• Pages: 313-320

WILLIAMS V. KAMSON



313

possession to establish effectively a right to a declaration of title against another

person who proved a good title from the original owner. Possession may under

section 145 of the Evidence Act give a presumption of ownership, but it does not

do more and cannot stand when another proves a good title.

5





The appeal is accordingly allowed and the judgment and order as to costs of

the High Court is set aside and judgment is entered therein for the defendant and

the plaintiff's claims are dismissed. The defendant/appellant is entitled to his costs

in the High Court which we assess at 47 guineas and to his costs of this appeal

which we assess at 48 guineas.

Appeal allowed: Judgment and

order of High Court set aside:

Judgment entered for the

defendant: Plaintiff's claim

dismissed.

WILLIAMS V. KAMSON

20

S. 0. WILLIAMS

PERMANENT SECRETARY

MINISTRY OF WORKS

25 AND HOUSING

V

JOSEPH FOLARIN KAMSON

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

30



ADEMOLA,



C.J.N.

LEWIS,



J.S.C.

MADARIKAN,



J.S.C.

20th December, 1968.

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 67/1968

35 Land Law - Compulsory Acquisition of land - Basis for the award of compensation

payable on a compulsory acquisition of a factory or a business house - Whether

award could be made for disturbcnce - Public Lands Acquisition Act (Cap.167)

S 15.

40

ISSUES:

1.

What is the basis for the award of compensation payable on a compulsory

acquisition of a factory or a business house.

2.

Can an award of compensation be made for disturbance arising from a

compulsory acquisition.

45

FACTS:

The appellant, on behalf of the Federal Ministry of Works brought an origina-

ting summons before the Lagos HO Court under the Public Land Acquisition Act

Cap. 167, to determine the amount of compensation to be paid to the defendant

in respect of his residential buildings and factory buildings acquired by Govern-

50





ment. A sum of £35,646 was offered as compensation to the defendant which he

declined to accept as being insufficient. In his amended statement of interest the

defendant claimed compensation of either the basis of alternative site in the total

sum of £142,647:15s:Od, or the basis of total extinction in the sum of £168,588. In

his judgment the trial Judge rejected the claim for extinction of business and

10

15