The Determination of Whether Action Statute-Barred:

The question as to whether or not an action is statute-barred is dependent on the nature of the action, and the relevant provisions of the statute of limitation. It touches on the jurisdiction of the court. The jurisdiction of the court is determined by the plaintiff’s claim as endorsed on the writ of summons and elaborated in the statement of claim. A cause of action is said to be statute-barred if, in respect of it, proceedings cannot be brought because the period laid down by the Limitation Act or Law has elapsed.

The Effect Where Action Statute-Barred:

When an action is statute-barred, the plaintiff who might have had a cause of action loses the right to enforce the cause of action by judicial process because the period of limitation had elapsed. An action commenced after the expiration of the statutory period within which an action must be brought is not maintainable. In other words, when a statute of limitation prescribes a period within which an action must be initiated, legal proceedings cannot be properly and validly instituted after the expiration of the prescribed period. Any such action instituted must be struck out as not being properly instituted before the court. In the instant case, the right of the appellants to commence an action against the respondents for compensation was extinguished by operation of the law - that is, section 6(3) and of the Federal Capital Territory Act 1976 – having not provided any evidence that they indeed wrote an application for compensation within the 12 months period stipulated by the Act. In the circumstances, the trial court was neither competent nor conferred with any jurisdiction to have entertained the appellants’ claims against the respondents since the action was statute-barred. The Court of Appeal was therefore right to have set aside the judgment of the trial court and in holding that the maker of the Act did not intend the issue of compensation to linger ad infinitum.

The Need to Comply with Prescribed Statutory Provision in Performance of Duty:

Where a law, in the instant case the Federal Capital Territory Act, provides for the doing of an act with conditions, the courts have a duty to look into the matter to ensure that the conditions were fulfilled. In this case, it was specifically provided in section 6(3) of the Act that claims for compensation by persons affected “shall” be filed within 12 months from the date of the commencement of the Order made under section 2 of the Act. As at 2012 when the appellants commenced their action at the trial court, the Act had been in existence for 36 years. If any of the people, described as indigenous occupiers, failed to file any claim for compensation within the time specified in accordance with the provisions of the Act, such persons would be presumed not to have any valid claim. In the circumstances, the respondents were entitled to maintain that no further claims, apart from those filed within the time prescribed in the Act, were in existence.

The Limitation Period for Claims in Respect of Right or Interest in Land Comprised in Federal Capital Territory:

By virtue of section 6(3) of the Federal Capital Territory Act, 1976 any person who claims any right or interest in any land comprised in the Federal Capital Territory shall submit in writing particulars of his claims to the Executive Secretary on or before the expiration of twelve months from the date of commencement of the Order made under section 2 of the Act or such longer period as the President may, either generally or in relation to any particular claim or claims, prescribed by notice published in the Federal Gazette. No claim for compensation shall be entertained by the authority unless a written notice of the claim in accordance with sub-section 3 of the section is served on the Authority within the period specified in the said subsection. The provision operates as a limitation time, prescribing a period within which a party who has a claim for compensation can bring such claim before the Authority.

Inequitable Deprivation

Above is the conclusion of the Supreme Court decision in Alabra vs Minister of FCT. The policy originally driving the theory of compulsory acquisition of land is common infrastructure and the need for uniformity. In this regard, the government holds land in trust for the people and it is expected to act in good faith to ensure equitable use and distribution of the land. Upon successful acquisition of land, the government may at times allocate it to industries, estate development companies, institutions and other public-related entities, to transform it for the common good. In such cases, the original owners of the land are deprived of their customary heritage and identity. The solution is to make the process inclusive such that the land-owning families themselves are allowed to participate in the development of the land.

Right of First Refusal:

Prior to or in the process of compulsory acquisition of land, the original land owner should be acknowledged and granted the priority of choice when any part or portion of the land is no longer to be used for public purpose. Where land is acquired to build a road network and for any reason whatsoever there is a change of policy, the original land owner should be granted the primary right of first refusal before such land is allocated for any commercial purpose by the government. That will create a sense of equity. Even though some form of compensation may have been paid prior to the acquisition, since the primary purpose has been defeated, abandoned or altered, continued deprivation of original ownership then becomes inequitable. The policy being one that carried the toga of compulsory acquisition and not voluntary surrender of land, law should not be deployed to sustain a process that perpetuates inequality or deprivation. In such a situation, what the government should do is to give guidelines by way of policy formulation. It is only when the right of first refusal has been exhausted that such land should be available for re-allocation to other private entities.

Preserving Identity:

A nation is so called because of its people and identity. In Nigeria for instance, most States of the Federation are identified by and traceable to the traditional history of the original land owners. The process of compulsory acquisition of land should thus acknowledge, accept and consolidate the identity of the owners as it was by virtue of their initial occupation or radical ownership of the land that it became available for use in the first instance.

Adequate and Meaningful Compensation

When one goes through court cases on compulsory land acquisition, there is always a sad story to tell on behalf of the land owners. What the law has done is to render the issue of adequate compensation virtually ineffective as the original land owner is required to proceed to court to challenge only the adequacy of compensation and not the act of compulsory acquisition. The law allows the government to acquire land compulsorily and pay pittance as compensation because the land is said to be needed for public purpose. It is from the payment offered as compensation that the land owner is expected to fund a court case to prove the inadequacy of compensation, thus suffering double jeopardy. It should be the other way round. Since land acquisition is compulsory, it should be the responsibility of the acquiring authority to justify the adequacy of compensation before acquisition becomes effective in law. In all cases, compensation paid for compulsory acquisition of land should only be accepted by the courts as meaningful and adequate only when it competes with contemporary market realities. And the burden of such proof should lie squarely on the acquiring authority that is seeking to deprive a legal right over an existing asset.

Limitation Imposed by Statute:

In many cases, statutes granting power of compulsory acquisition of land prescribe certain limitation periods for challenging the act of acquisition. This should only be valid where the acquiring authority complies with the original purpose of acquisition for the good of the public. Once there is proof of deviation, the limitation should be lifted, granting the original land owners the right of action against any act of abuse or fraud.

The Land Use Act:

The prevailing law is that the Land Use Act has been inserted into the Constitution to become part of it, meaning that it cannot be repealed or amended without following the process of amendment of the Constitution itself. This was a piece of legislation imposed upon the people of Nigeria in 1978 by the military government as part of the relics of military dictatorship. That should not be a document standing side by side with the organic law of Nigeria, given all its deficiencies and inequalities. As a matter of urgency therefore, the National Assembly should extricate the Land Use Act from the Constitution, repeal it and allow each State to develop its own peculiar, suitable and acceptable policy and legislative framework on land management.

CONCLUSION

The decision of the Supreme Court in Alabra v Minister of FCT accords with existing legislation and previous court decisions on the point. What is needed is urgent legislative action on all existing laws that seek to appropriate people’s heritage and extinguish their identities compulsorily without first discharging the corresponding obligation to ensure adequate, meaningful and proper compensation.