PETER OLASENI ADENIYI THOMAS & 2ORS V JULIANA EJARO EDEWOR THOMAS
April 16, 2025ETUBOM (DR) ANTHONY ASUQUO ANI & 4 ORS V ETUBOM EKPO OKON ABASI OUT & 4 ORS
April 16, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2017) Legalpedia (CA) 11516
In the Court of Appeal
Fri Feb 24, 2017
Suit Number: CA/ L/647/2012
CORAM
ABIMBOLA O. OBASEKI ADEJUMO
ABIMBOLA O. OBASEKI ADEJUMO
ABIMBOLA O. OBASEKI ADEJUMO
ABIMBOLA O. OBASEKI ADEJUMO
ABIMBOLA O. OBASEKI ADEJUMO
ABIMBOLA O. OBASEKI ADEJUMO
PARTIES
1. ADISA WAHEED ABERUAGBA2. RASHEED AKANGBE OLUSHESI (For themselves and as head and representative of the Esimikan family of Ilado-odo and Inagbe islands) APPELLANTS
1. PRINCE MOBADENLE OYEKAN2. ALIABE DOSUMU3. MUFUTAU TADEYO4. ADESOJI AJOSE (For themselves and as head and Representatives of Asi-Dosumu family of Lagos)5. CHIEFTAINCY COMMITTEES OJO LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA6. CHIEFTAINCY COMMITTEE AMUWO ODOFIN LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA7. LAGOS STATE COUNCIL OF OBAS AND CHIEFS8. MILITARY ADMINISTRATION OF LAGOS STATE9. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF LAGOS STATE RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Applicants are Appellants in the substantive appeal within which briefs were filed and exchanged before this application was filed. The Applicant was the Claimant at the court below but their claim was dismissed while the counterclaim of the 1st- 4th Respondents was granted. Aggrieved by the said decision the Applicants filed a Notice of Appeal which was amended before this application praying the court for the following: an order granting leave to raise an issue which was not raised before the lower court, to wit; the jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain the suit, an order granting leave to the further amend the amended Notice of Appeal, an Order granting leave to amend the Appellants’ Brief of Arguments, an Order deeming the further Amended Notice of Appeal as being properly filed and served. The grounds on which the application was predicated is on the issue that the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the suit was never canvassed at the lower court, hence, leave of court is required to raise the fresh issue, that leave of this court is required to properly amend the amended Notice of Appeal among others. The application was opposed by the 1st – 4th Respondents. The 5th , 6th, 7th – 9th Respondents did not oppose the application.
HELD
Application Granted
ISSUES
Ø Whether the applicant has made out a case to warrant granting the application?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CASES CITED
