Court Dismisses Farmland Degradation Suit Against Construction Company

Alex Enumah in Abuja

A High Court of Justice of Kaduna State has dismissed a suit that sought to prevent Datum Construction Nigeria Ltd from operating at a quarry site in Kujama, Kaduna State, on the grounds of alleged farmland degradation.

Justice Edward Andow, in his judgment, ruled that the suit filed by the alleged farmland owner, Shekwogaza Joseph Audu, was unmeritorious.

The judge also held that, although Audu may have genuine concerns about damage to his land, he failed to present the quality of evidence required by law to support his claims.

Although the judgment was delivered on June 8, 2026, a Certified True Copy (CTC) sighted by THISDAY on Thursday in Abuja showed that Datum Construction Nigeria Ltd was the sole defendant in the suit marked: KDH//KAD/409/2021.

Among the reliefs sought by the plaintiff were: a declaration that the company’s continuous rock blasting and other quarry activities had grossly undermined and affected the value of his land.

Audu further sought a declaration that the environmental impact of the defendant’s activities had also damaged soil water quality for farming and function through the earth, thereby making the farm unproductive and crop yielding in his land untenable and further devaluing the land.

He therefore sought an order that the firm remove any object and cease any activity that affects his right to enjoy peaceable possession, occupation and use of his land.

Audu also prayed the court for an order awarding the sum of N5 million against the company as damages for causing the degradation and for undermining the land quality, which had led to loss in food quality and production due to its activities.

Responding, the defendant in its amended statement of defence, filed by its lawyer, Emmanuel Ekpenyong Esq. of the law firm of Fred‑Young & Evans LP, vehemently denied the allegations.

The defendant asserts its standing as “a highly responsible, law‑biding corporate citizen.”

Although the firm did not explicitly admit or deny the plaintiff’s title, putting him to the strictest proof, it stated that the Federal Ministry of Mines and Steel Development granted it Quarry Lease No. 1793QLS on August 15, 2007, following rigorous regulatory inspections, and that the lease remains valid through successive renewals until 2027.

The firm also produced Environmental Audit Certificates issued by the National Enforcement Agency (NESREA) to establish due compliance in its quarrying activities.

Delivering judgment, the court held that under Section 135 of the Evidence Act, 2011, when a party alleges forgery in a civil suit, that allegation carries a criminal standard of proof and must be established beyond reasonable doubt.

“Apart from mere assertions, the plaintiff failed to prove its legal title or interest on the farmland or the size and borders of the land. This robs him of locus standi in this case.”

“Furthermore, the plaintiff’s failure to establish his own case means he cannot succeed by simply pointing out flaws in the defence.”

“In a civil suit, a plaintiff must win on the strength of his own credible evidence, not on the perceived weakness of the defendant’s case.”

“The plaintiff here has provided no scientific data, no boundary descriptions, no title documentation, and no verified proof of financial loss. His claims remain completely unproven.”

“Issue 3 is accordingly resolved against the plaintiff.”

“This court cannot act on sentiment or substitute speculative common sense for solid, expert proof.”

“This suit is thoroughly unmeritorious and is bound to fail.”

“Consequently, the plaintiff’s case fails and his claims are hereby dismissed in their entirety for want of evidence.”

“Each party shall bear their own costs,” the Judge ruled.