THE DEMOLITION OF PETER OBI'S BROTHER'S HOUSE: THE CONCEPT OF SUIT AGAINST PERSON UNKNOWN.

On the 24th of June 2025, a controversy arose following a post made by Peter Obi, the former presidential candidate, over the demolition of a building belonging to his brother. The demolition was in execution of a court Order against "persons unknown" which raised the question of the legality and fairness of issuing an order against a person without first hearing from them.

This act raised a heavy question of the legality of the order and whether the act of the Demolishers is legal and known in our jurisprudence.

Who is an Unknown person?

An unknown person is a person whose identity is not revealed at the time of the institution of the case. He is an anonymous or unknown person. This usually arises in a trespass case where the trespasser is Unknown by the owner of the land.

An unknown person has been judicially defined by the Nigerian courts in its many judgements. To wit; In the case of Obasanjo v. Yusuf (2004) 9 NWLR (Pt. 877) 144 the Apex court held inter alia that:

"A person unknown is a person not known"

The proceedings against an unidentified or unknown person is a unique one and is governed by different rules of court in Nigeria. For instance, Order 57 of the Lagos state High court rules (Civil procedure 2017) stipulates that such action must be by way of originating summons against the unknown trespasser and no acknowledgement of service is required. (See also Order 50 of Kaduna state High rules (civil procedure); Order 51 of Edo state High court Rules, Order 53 of Ogun state High court Rules etc.)

The owner of the land is entitled, to go to court and obtain an order stating that he wants to recover the land, and to issue a writ of possession immediately. A summons can be issued for possession against squatters even though they cannot be identified by name and summarily. An order of court can then be obtained and enforced by a writ of possession immediately. (See the case of Persons, Name Unknown v. Sahris Intl Ltd (2019) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1689) 203)

However, Peter Obi claims that his brother has a requisite legal permit and owns the place for decades and there has never been a summon notifying the brother. So can we say granting an order for demolishing the property without a proper notice to his brother (the alleged owner) will be a violation of our law and a deviation from the existing court's precedence?

The Apex court declared in the case of Ararume v. Ubah (2021) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1779) 511 that:

"A court of law will not make an order affecting the interest of a party that is not before it; so doing will amount to an unpardonable infraction on the fundamental right of the party to fair hearing. It is unconscionable to shave a man’s head from his back"

Equally, a court is enjoined not to make an order that will affect the interest or right of a person or body that is not a party to the case and who was never heard in the matter (see the case of Ukpo v. Ngaji (2010) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1174) 175).

However, where an order is made against a faceless (unknown) person, he can only appeal against the order when he reveals his identity to the Court. Thus, the court held in the case of Persons, Names Unknown v. S. Intl Ltd. (2006) 8 NWLR (Pt. 982) 255 that:

"A person unknown is expected to quickly identify himself and apply to be made a defendant, and he can only appeal from a decision after making out a prima facie case that he is a person interested, aggrieved or prejudicially affected by the judgment"

Also, in the case of Persons, Name Unknown v. Sahris Intl Ltd (supra) it was held inter alia that:

"A person unknown cannot appeal on a matter unless he identifies himself by name and seeks leave to appeal as a person interested therein.... Those who are appealing as unknown persons cannot claim that they do not know themselves. The right thing for them to do, immediately the suit was filed, was for them to disclose themselves, and then apply to join as interested defendants..."

Therefore, an unknown person cannot get a relief from court until he identifies himself or shows an interest in the matter before the court.

Conclusion:

As seen from the above, the order granted by the Court to demolish the house of Peter Obi's brother was given against squatters, which is permitted by rules of our Courts, but was executed without following the due process of law. It resulted in a legal absurdity, and the court must not allow such extra-judicial procedures to thrive in Nigeria.

However, since the brother is contending that he has ownership, in order to appeal against the order, he must disclose his identity and appeal to the Court.