ALHAJI A.W. AKIBU V. JOSEPH OPALEYE & ANOR - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

ALHAJI A.W. AKIBU V. JOSEPH OPALEYE & ANOR

IN RE: QUO VADIS HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS LTD VS COMMISSIONER OF LANDS
August 9, 2025
COLONEL OLU ROTIMI & ORS V. MRS F. O. MACGREGOR & ORS
August 9, 2025
IN RE: QUO VADIS HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS LTD VS COMMISSIONER OF LANDS
August 9, 2025
COLONEL OLU ROTIMI & ORS V. MRS F. O. MACGREGOR & ORS
August 9, 2025
Show all

ALHAJI A.W. AKIBU V. JOSEPH OPALEYE & ANOR

Legalpedia Citation: (1974-11) Legalpedia (SC) 01284

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Thu Nov 21, 1974

Suit Number: SC. 358/1973

CORAM


TASLIM O. ELIAS, CHIEF JUSTICE OF NIGERIA

COKER, AG, CHIEF JUSTICE, NIGERIA

EORGE S. SOWEMIMO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT


PARTIES


ALHAJI A. W. AKIBU

APPELLANTS 


JOSEPH OPALEYE

ISIAH FALAYE

RESPONDENTS 


AREA(S) OF LAW


DISPUTE ON LAND MATTER

 


SUMMARY OF FACTS

Judgment was entered in favor of the Plaintiffs/respondents at the high court, against the Defendant/ appellant, in the terms of the writ of summons for declaration of title and injunction. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court being dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned trial Judge.

 


HELD


The appeal succeeded and was allowed.

 


ISSUES


That the learned trial Judge failed to consider the unchallenged evidence before him, stretching from 1926 as pleaded and deposed to by the appellant and his witnesses with regard to his defense of long possession.

The verdict is against the weight of evidence.

 


RATIONES DECIDENDI


WHERE LONG POSSESSION IS ESTABLISHED IN EVIDENCE


“It is settled law that, where long possession is established in evidence, the court will not normally exercise its discretionary right of granting declaration of title in favor of a party not in possession.” Per G. S. SOWEMIMO, JSC.

 


DUTY OF A TRIAL JUDGE CONCERNING MATERIAL EVIDENCE


“It is also settled law that it is the duty of a trial Judge to evaluate relevant and material evidence before him and decide on the issues as raised on the pleadings before him.” Per G. S. SOWEMIMO, JSC.

 


THE POSITION OF THE SUPREME COURT WHERE IT IS CLEAR THAT EVIDENCE HAS BEEN LED IN THE LOWER COURT WHICH ESTABLISHES A FACT BUT NOT FOUND BY THE LOWER COURT


“Although this court rehears a case on appeal, it does this only on the records and, where it is quite clear that evidence has been led in the lower court which establishes a fact, it will make the necessary finding which the lower court failed to make.” Per G. S. SOWEMIMO, JSC.

 


CASES CITED


Thomas v. Thomas (1947) AC 484, at pp. 487, 488

Fatoyinbo v. Williams (1956) 1 FSC 87.

 


STATUTES REFERRED TO


Not Available

 


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

Comments are closed.