Court accedes to Omole residents’ plea to challenge hotel project

0
67

Omole-04-04-2011FINDING the stance of a Lagos State High Court unmeritorious, a Court of Appeal, Lagos, has held that residents and members of Omole Phase II estate have the legal right to challenge the state government over an approval to erect a guesthouse or a motel within the estate.

This was the conclusion of Justice Clara Bata Ogunbiyi in an appeal by Brig. Gen Fred Bin Chijuka (rtd) and nine others, who approached the court in the capacity of chairman and principal members of the estate for themselves and on behalf of residents and landlords of one of the Government Reserved Area settlements within the metropolis.

They sued one Mr. Kenneth Maduewesi and Lagos State Government, first and second respondents respectively.

Moved to stop the location of a guesthouse within the estate, already approved by the state, the appellants had sought for court’s intervention to basically nullify the said approval.

The claimants had in their statement of claim deposed that the construction of a hotel, motel or guesthouse or the like in the midst of their houses, a purely residential area, would not only breach the purpose of the certificate of occupancy and relevant laws but will subject them to some serious moral and security hazards.

Specifically, they complained that they would be exposed to prostitution and armed robbery, within the vicinity of the estate.

According to the residents, they said their right to safety and security of their families and property would be imminently threatened. They therefore asked the court among others to declare that the first defendant’s action if allowed will amount to a violation of the environmental and physical plans of the estate with grave damage for which no sufficient or adequate remedy will be available and a declaration that the proposed use of Plot 718 Block 27 Omole Phase Layout, Ikeja, by the first defendant as hotels, motels, inn, guest houses, chalets or the likes is illegal, null and void.

But in a preliminary objection, the defendants argued that the residents had no locus standi to initiate the suit in the first instance.