In a bid to stop the proposed demolition of his church, The President of
the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) Pastor Ayo Oritsejafor has
dragged Lagos state Government and six others before a Lagos High Court.
Joined as co-respondents in the suit are the Lagos state
governor, Mr. Babatunde Fashola (SAN), the state’s Attorney-General,
Lagos state Ministry of Physical planning and Urban Development, Lagos
state Building Control Agency, Lagos state Physical Planning Permit
Authority, and Lagos state Task force on Environmental Sanitation, Pm
News reports.
The Incorporated Trustees of Word of Life Bible
Church, the claimant is urging the court for an order restraining the
defendants their agents, servants, officers or privies from demolishing
or further demolishing, destroying, or forcibly ejecting them. The
claimant urged the court that they should not continue to take steps or
in any other manner engage in any activity(ies) detrimental or contrary
to the rights of the ownership or possession of the claimant in respect
of the claimants land located at Plot 21E, Abdulrahman Okene Close, Off
Ligali Ayorinde Street Victoria Island, Annex Lagos.
The
claimants in an affidavit filed before the court averred that after
applying for building plan approval from the respondents and it was not
forthcoming within the regulated period the claimants through Pastor
Oritsejafor made due enquires, wrote several letters, and also held
meetings with the former governor of the state, Senator Bola Tinubu and
the present governor of Lagos state Babatunde Fashola.
Consequently,
in March 2013, the claimant received a letter from the defendants
directing them to submit certain documents to facilitate the process of
the approval of the building plan which it was complied with.
However,
while the claimant was still awaiting the building plan approval so as
to continue with its Church building the claimant suddenly discovered
that the defendants had pasted a certain contravention notice dated
January 20, 2014 on its fence, alleging absence of development permit,
as ground of seeking removal of the building on the land within two
days.
The defendants, in their counter-affidavit alleged that the
action of the claimants of not complying with rules and regulations
generated the its supposed action.
They also alleged that the
claimant commenced the Attention of the structure on the said property
without first obtaining a development permit. It was stated further that
though, the claimant had applied for the permit, but it did not wait
for the approval, rather it continued with the construction of the
building.
The defendants further added that the claimant has also not provided all that was required to process its development permit.
No comments:
Post a Comment