Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability Of Fundamental Rights Rules In Land Disputes: A Review Of Delta Power Holding Co. Ltd. V. Ulonna Michael (2025) 4 NWLR (Pt. 489)

By Lanase Usman A.[1]

1.0: INTRODUCTION

The enforcement of fundamental rights is a cornerstone of constitutional democracy and it is designed to protect citizens from arbitrary actions from fellow citizens and both private and public institutions. In Nigeria, the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009 (FREP Rules) provide the procedural framework for enforcing these rights. However, the application of the FREP Rules to land disputes has been a contentious issue in Nigerian jurisprudence.

Generally, courts have held that land disputes fall outside the purview of the FREP Rules, as established in the case of Amale v. Sokoto Local Government (2012) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1292) 181. This case restricted the scope of the FREP Rules. The court in this case held that matters involving declaration of title to land, compensation, or possession should be resolved through regular civil litigation (writ of summons) rather than fundamental rights enforcement.

However, the Supreme court in the recent case of Niger Delta Power Holding Company Ltd. v. Ulonna Michael ([2025] 4 NWLR 489), have signaled a paradigm shift. The Supreme Court, in this judgment expressly overruled the earlier decision of the court in Amale v. Sokoto Local Government. This clarified the position of the law that land matters can indeed fall under the FREP Rules if claimant directly and substantially allege a breach of constitutional rights.

This article focused on the court’s reasoning in Niger Delta Power Holding Company Ltd. and its implications for future cases. It also examines instances where land disputes may invoke the FREP Rules, 2009.

2.0: SUMMARY OF THE CASE LEADING TO THE APPEAL IN NIGER DELTA POWER HOLDING COMPANY LTD.

The case of Niger Delta Power Holding Company Ltd. v. Ulonna Michael originated from a dispute concerning the compulsory acquisition of land by the appellant without due process or compensation. The respondent, Ulonna Michael, commenced an action at the Federal High Court, Abuja Judicial Division, seeking enforcement of his fundamental rights under the FREP Rules. Specifically, the respondent alleged that the compulsory acquisition of his plots of land (Plots 1314A, 1314B, and 1280B at Apo Layout, Apo District, Abuja) violated his constitutional rights under Section 44(1) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended).

The respondent sought several reliefs, including declarations that the acquisition was unlawful, an order for compensation, and damages totaling N100,000,000 as general, aggravated, and exemplary damages, along with N3,000,000 in litigation costs. In response, the appellant filed a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court, arguing that the matter was essentially a land dispute and thus outside the purview of the FREP Rules.

The trial court upheld the preliminary objection, holding that the action was not properly constituted under the FREP Rules and struck out the application. Dissatisfied with this decision, the respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal, which overturned the trial court’s decision. The Court of Appeal held that the respondent’s suit was competently initiated under the FREP Rules and remitted the matter back to the trial court for reassignment to another judge. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court.

3.0: RESOLUTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

In a unanimous judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal, dismissing the appellant’s appeal. The court overruled its earlier decision in Amale v. Sokoto Local Government. Justice Abubakar, delivering the leading judgment, noted that rigid adherence to this precedent would perpetuate injustice and undermine the essence of fundamental rights protection. He stated:

The previous decision of this court in Amale v. Sokoto Local Government, which unduly restricted the scope of enforcement of the fundamental right to property guaranteed under Section 44(1) of the Constitution, is with all due respect no longer helpful to our current state of development. The continued application of the decision will visit harm and injury to public interest and ultimately defeat the ends of justice.

Justice Abubakar emphasized that the decision in Amale v. Sokoto Local Government had narrowly interpreted the provisions of the FREP Rules and Section 44(1) of the Constitution, potentially barring genuine grievances from being heard. The court distinguished the facts of the present case from those in Amale and held that claims alleging procedural and substantive violations of constitutional safeguards related to property rights could be invoke under the FREP Rules.

The court cited Lord Denning, MR, in Ostime v. Australian Mutual Provident Society [(1960) AC 459 (HL)] while acknowledging the importance of judicial humility in rectifying errors in past decisions. It was noted that:

“The doctrine of precedent does not compel your Lordships to follow the wrong path until you fall over the edge of the cliff.”

It is important to note that the Supreme Court has power to overrule itself when it appears that any of its decision has been given in error. This is predicated on the fact that it is far better to admit an error than to persevere. In the case of Adegoke Motors Ltd. v. Adesanya (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 109) 250, Per OPUTA, J.S.C. at pages 274-275, paras. G-A:

“We are final not because we are infallible, rather we are infallible because we are final. Justices of this court are human beings, capable of erring. It will certainly be short-sighted arrogance not to accept this obvious truth. It is also true that this court can do inestimable good through its wise decisions. Similarly, the court can do incalculable harm through its mistakes. When therefore it appears to learned counsel that any decision of this court has been given per incuriam, such counsel should have the boldness and courage to ask that such a decision be over-ruled.

The above statement reflects the court’s willingness to evolve legal principles to meet the demands of justice and societal progression.

4.0: INSTANCES WHERE LAND MATTERS CAN COME UNDER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS (ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE) RULES, 2009

The Supreme Court’s decision in Niger Delta Power Holding Company Ltd. establishes that land disputes can fall under the FREP Rules if they fundamentally allege a breach of constitutional rights. The following factors determine whether a land matter can invoke the FREP Rules:

1. Nature of the Claim

The court emphasized that the determination of whether an action is properly brought under the FREP Rules depends on the nature of the claim. If the claim fundamentally alleges a violation of constitutional rights, such as procedural safeguards related to property rights under Section 44(1) of the Constitution, the FREP Rules apply. Justice Abubakar noted:

“The fact that the respondent’s claim involves land does not automatically exclude it from the purview of the FREP Rules if the claim fundamentally alleges a breach of constitutional rights.”

2. Reliefs Sought

The reliefs sought by the claimant is also very important in determining whether the FREP Rules are applicable. In the instant case, the respondent sought declarations that the compulsory acquisition of his property without due process violated his constitutional rights. These reliefs were not merely about resolving a land dispute or title issue but substantially and directly about enforcement of fundamental rights. The court noted:

“The respondent is not merely seeking to resolve a land dispute or title issue; he is alleging a breach of his fundamental right to property as guaranteed by the Constitution.”

3. Procedural Safeguards

The court further highlighted the importance of procedural safeguards in property rights disputes. Section 44(1)(a) of the Constitution requires prompt payment of compensation and access to a court or tribunal for determining the amount of compensation payable. Claims alleging violations of these safeguards can invoke the FREP Rules, as they directly pertain to the enforcement of constitutional rights.

4. Substantial and direct violations:

Substantive violations of constitutional rights, such as the arbitrary deprivation of property, also fall under the FREP Rules. The court noted that the FREP Rules are designed to address clear violations of fundamental rights, including those safeguarding property rights.

Implications of the Decision in Niger Delta Power Holding Company Ltd.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Niger Delta Power Holding Company Ltd has far-reaching implications for the enforcement of fundamental rights in land disputes. By overruling Amale v. Sokoto Local Government, the Supreme Court has expanded the scope of the FREP Rules, ensuring that genuine grievances involving constitutional rights are not barred from redress. This decision aligns with the dynamic nature of constitutional interpretation, prioritizing substantive justice over rigid adherence to precedent.

The emphasis of the Supreme court that the nature of the claim and the reliefs sought by applicant should be considered in determining whether the FREP Rules apply has further provided clarity for future cases. This decision has ensured that the FREP Rules remain a viable mechanism for enforcing fundamental rights, even in disputes involving land. This approach therefore reflects the Supreme court’s commitment to upholding the dignity and liberty of individuals, as enshrined under chapter four of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended.

5.0: CONCLUSION

The decision in Niger Delta Power Holding Company Ltd. v. Ulonna Michael represents a watershed moment in Nigerian jurisprudence, particularly in the area of enforcement of human right and property law practice. The effect of the court overruling its earlier decision in Amale v. Sokoto Local Government is that the apex court has clarified that land disputes can indeed fall within the scope of FREP Rules when they fundamentally, directly and substantially allege a breach of fundamental human rights. Importantly, this case also reveals the evolving nature of legal principles and the judiciary’s role in adapting precedent to meet societal needs.

[1] Lanase Usman, AICMC. LL.B Hons (UNILORIN), BL (ABUJA). He currently works as a Legal Administrative Assistant at the law firm of L.O Fagbemi, SAN (Rahma Chambers). He can be contacted via: 08106646768, Email:lanaseabidemi@gmail.com.

The post Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability Of Fundamental Rights Rules In Land Disputes: A Review Of Delta Power Holding Co. Ltd. V. Ulonna Michael (2025) 4 NWLR (Pt. 489) appeared first on TheNigeriaLawyer.