Re: La Republique du Cameroun as trespasser in possession of Southern Cameroon's right to sue Nigeria

Dear Dr Tumasang

 

I have read with great interest your opinion that La Republique du Cameroun, even as trespasser over Southern Cameroons territory, could validly sue Nigeria in  court for intrusion into Bakassi which is located in Southern Cameroons which is currently under illegal occupation by La Republique du Cameroun.

 

That may well be so if the two trespassers are located within the same jurisdiction, whereupon the Court will then have to determine which of the two trespassers has prior occupational rights.

 

In the instant case however, the ICJ is a special international Court established under the UN Charter, specifically to try disputes between any two member states of the UN. The Charter provides in Art. 102 the joining procedure to be followed if any member state of the UN (as La Republique du Cameroun  was when it commenced litigation against Nigeria), wishes to join another territory.  The Article provides that the two parties contemplating a Union should execute a written and signed Agreement embodying the terms of the contemplated union, and file a copy of the Agreement at the UN Secretariat for publication concerning the new boundaries of the new state. Sub-section 2 of the same Article states that failure to comply with the statutory requirements of sub-section (1), renders the Agreement invalid, and such an Agreement cannot be cited before any of the six organs of the United Nations, one of such organs being the International Court of Justice.

 

I am inclined to the view that as LRC which graduated to independence on 1 Jan 1960 with clearly defined international boundaries, applied and was admitted a member of the UN on 20 September 1960, it became bound by the provisions of the Charter, particularly Art. 102.  The exercise of sovereign authority over the territory of Southern Cameroons is a blatant act of imperial annexation of Southern Cameroons by LRC.  The so-called "union" between LRC and Southern Cameroons, without a signed Treaty of Union, duly filed at the Secretariat of the UN so that it could be publicly verifiable, violates the UN Charter and is an unconstitutional act and so cannot be cited before the ICJ which is one of the six UN organs.  My view therefore is that LRC lacked the capacity to take the Bakassi dispute to the ICJ by not disclosing the notorious fact that subsequent to its independence on 1 Jan 1960 when its territorial boundaries became immutable, and it was admitted a member of the UN on 20 Sept 1960, there has been no Treaty of Union with Southern Cameroons to enable LRC to speak before the ICJ as if Southern Cameroons was an integral part of its territory.  LRC therefore secured judgment under fraudulent misrepresentation by hiding from the Court the notorious truth that it came before the ICJ as the country which had attained independence on 1 Jan 1960 as La Republique du Cameroun which did not include Southern Cameroons as part of the state which was subsequnetly admitted into the UN on 20 Sept 1960.

 

I would welcome your learned observation as to whether LRC was competent to sue Nigeria concerning the territory of Bakassi which is indisputably located in Southern Cameroons, in the absence of a signed Treaty of Union with Southern Cameroons, duly filed at the UN Secretariat.  So to do would be using a subsidiary organ of the UN (i.e. the ICJ) to violate a provision of the governing UN Charter.

 

Accept my most humble regards

 

Mola

 

 

On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Tumasang Martin <tumasangm@hotmail.com> wrote:

Sometime ago, I tried to convince my brother Louis that theoretically, La Republique du Cameroun even as a Trespasser in Southern Cameroons, since they are in possession and full control of the territory, as trespasser in possession, they have the legal right to sue a third party like Nigeria against trespass on the land unless Nigeria can show they have better rights than La Republique du Cameroon or they can show evidence that they are a trespasser in possession and not La Republique du Cameroon.
 
Both parties cannot sue Southern Cameroons for trespass since we are the bonafide title owners of the land. I could not convince Louis and said we should agree to disagree until when I can get a case that clearly states the issue. I tried to avoid British or American cases and looked for local Cameroonian or Nigeria cases since the local/customary/municipal laws are similar. I hope the below case/cases will put the outstanding issue between me and him to rest. i.e. that a trespasser to land who is in possession can sue another trespasser who comes to disturb his possession and enjoyment of the trespassed land. It is like a squatter or trespasser suing someone (subsequent potential squatter or trespasser not the owner) who comes to disturb him. As reprehensible as this might sound, it is the law.

 

In Omotayo v. Co-operative Supply Association (2011) Vol. 202 LRCN , the judge said

"Where a plaintiff has failed to prove title to land, it may be necessary to consider evidence of possession in order to ascertain whether he is in any event entitled to damages and injunction claimed for trespass, if it is shown that he was in possession which was disturbed. This is on the basis that trespass is essentially an issue of who is in possession. A person who is in possession of land even as a trespasser can sue another who thereafter comes upon the land unless that other is the owner or shows some title which gives him a better right to be on the land. There is cogent evidence that the respondent was in possession of the land in dispute and therefore can sue without asking for declaration".

Other cases that support the above point are as follows:
 

(i) Oluwi v. Eniola (1967) NMLR 339;

(ii) Kareem v. Ogunde (1972) 1 ALL NLR (Pt.1) 73;

 

(iii) Amakor v. Obiefuna (1974) 1 ALL NLR 119;

(iv) Oduola v. Nabhan (1981) 5 SC 197;

(v) Aromire v. Awoyemi (1972) 2 SC 57; (1972) 1

All NLR (Pt.1) 101.

(vi) Adesanya v. Otueh (1993) 1 SCNLR pg. 77;

(vii) Jodi v. Salami (2009) ALL FWLR (Pt 458) 385;

 (viii) Ekpo v. Uyo (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt.26) pg.63.

Conclusion

 

Theoretically, La Republique du Cameroun as trespasser in possession in Southern Cameroons can sue a third party trespasser like Nigeria who comes later and tries to disturb his quiet enjoyment of the trespassed land such as exploitation of its mineral and oil and gas resources. Its hands are tied only in relation to Southern Cameroons people and/or government.

Regards

 

 

Tumasang
 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ambasbay" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ambasbay+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ambasbay" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ambasbay+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.