CORAM

---

Tunde Oyebanji Awotoye Justice of the Court of Appeal

Kenneth Ikechukwu Amadi Justice of the Court of Appeal

Abdu Dogo Justice of the Court of Appeal

---

PARTIES

---

1. ALHAJI ABDUSALEM OMONITAN 2. JONAH DADA

3. KAMILU OSAN-OGUN 4. SAHEED AJIU (Sannie Egba) 5. ALHAJI RASHEED BAKARE

(Suing for themselves and on behalf of Obasogun Royal Family, Isogu Quarters, Ilogbo, Ota, Ogun State)

APPELLANTS 

---

1. CHIEF M. A. DADA ARE

2. CHIEF B. A. ADELEYE

3. CHIEF ADIO ADESEGUN

4. CHIEF SADIKU ADIGUN OLOYEDE (Suing for themselves and on behalf of Edumeri Royal Family, Meejo Quarters, Ota, Ogun State)

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

ESTOPPEL, TERMS OF SETTLEMENT, INJUNCTION, LAND LAW, ORIGINATING SUMMONS, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, IDENTIFICATION OF LAND, ESTOPPEL BY RECORD, EVIDENCE, APPEAL

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellants, suing for themselves and on behalf of Obasogun Royal Family, filed an Originating Summons against the Respondents (suing for themselves and on behalf of Edumeri Royal Family) seeking a determination of whether the Respondents were estopped by record from entering, selling or stationing thugs on land belonging to the Appellants’ family by reason of clauses 2 and 3 in terms of settlement executed between the parties dated March 10, 2017. The Appellants also sought an injunction restraining the Respondents from trespassing, selling or alienating the land as contained in Survey Plan Number SA/007/LID/2013. The terms of settlement arose from Suit Number HCT/439/2013 and contained clauses acknowledging the known land boundaries of the two Royal Families. The Respondents filed a counter-affidavit opposing the application. The trial court dismissed the Appellants’ Originating Summons, holding that the terms of settlement (Exhibit A) was not ratified by the Court as judgment and therefore could not create estoppel by record, and that an injunctive relief could not be granted over unidentifiable or uncertain parcel of land. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court’s decision on all issues.

 

---

HELD

---

1.The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.

2.The Court held that the terms of settlement (Exhibit A) cannot create estoppel by record between the parties unless ratified by the Court as judgment.

3.The Court found that the lower Court properly determined the Originating Summons on the merit by answering the question for determination in the negative.

4.The Court held that the Appellants failed to identify the land in respect of which they sought injunction, making it impossible to grant the relief.

5.The Court awarded N100,000.00 costs against the Appellants and in favour of the Respondents.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1.Whether or not exhibit ‘A’ can validly ground a plea of estoppel as between the Appellants and the Respondents?

2.Whether or not the learned trial Judge could rightly dismiss the relief sought in the originating summons without a definite resolution of the question posed in the said summons one way or the other?

3.Whether or not the identity of the said land subject matter of the terms of settlement inter-parties was ever in issue to warrant a decision of the lower Court thereon?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

ESTOPPEL BY RECORD – REQUIREMENT FOR COURT RATIFICATION OF TERMS OF SETTLEMENT

---

“Let me say here that the Terms of Settlement (Exhibit A) can create Estoppel by record between the Claimants and the Defendants if the Court ratifies same as judgment between the Claimants and the Defendants.” – Per ABDU DOGO, J.C.A.

 

---

ESTOPPEL – DEFINITION AND CATEGORIES

---

“It is pertinent for me to state that estoppel, generally, is that doctrine where a party is not allowed to say that a certain statement of fact is untrue, whether in reality it is true or not. It is therefore a disability whereby a party is precluded from alleging or proving in legal proceedings that a fact is otherwise than it has been made to appear by the matter giving rise to that disability. The Common law recognizes three kinds: 1) Estoppel by record or quasi by record 2) Estoppel by deed and 3) Estoppel in pais.” – Per ABDU DOGO, J.C.A.

 

---

ESTOPPEL BY RECORD – CONDITIONS FOR APPLICATION

---

“One of the conditions for the application of estoppel by record whether as cause of action or issue estoppel is that the issue(s) in dispute between the parties must have been determined with finality by a Court of competent jurisdiction.” – Per ABDU DOGO, J.C.A.

 

---

ESTOPPEL BY RECORD – NECESSITY OF COURT RATIFICATION

---

“Therefore, I hold the view that the lower Court was right when it stated that Exhibit A can operate as estoppel by record against the parties only if it was ratified or adopted by the Court as part of its judgment in suit no: HCT/439/13. In the absence of such ratification the document cannot operate as estoppel by record against the parties to it.” – Per ABDU DOGO, J.C.A.

 

---

ORIGINATING SUMMONS – COURT’S DETERMINATION OF QUESTIONS

---

“I hold the view that the Appellants contention that the lower Court did not answer the question for determination one way or the other is misconceived. The lower Court must not expressly state in its judgment that the question for determination is answered in the affirmative or negative before it can be said that the Court has answered the question for determination one way or the other.” – Per ABDU DOGO, J.C.A.

 

---

DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS – ESTABLISHED PRACTICE

---

“The established practice is that where full hearing of a case is taken to its logical conclusion, and where the claim or relief is found to be lacking in merit, the consequential order that follows is that of dismissal of the claim or relief.” – Per ABDU DOGO, J.C.A.

 

---

INJUNCTION – REQUIREMENT FOR IDENTIFICATION OF LAND

---

“In an action for declaration of title to land, the land to which the declaration relates must be ascertained with certainty before the Court can make a declaration. The plaintiffs were unable to identify the land over which they seek declaration of title and injunction. No plan was presented by them to show the land they claim. Their testimony was vague on identity and dimensions of the land. The Court on these facts and evidence would be in grave error to give judgment for declaration of title or give order for injunction when the plaintiffs who seek the reliefs do not even know the land in dispute.” – Per ABDU DOGO, J.C.A.

 

---

INJUNCTION – PROHIBITION AGAINST GRANTING INJUNCTION OVER UNIDENTIFIED LAND

---

“The law is settled that the Court will not grant an injunction in respect of an unidentified land.” – Per ABDU DOGO, J.C.A.

 

---

OMNIBUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL – ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

---

“The position of the law is settled that no issue for determination can be raised from an omnibus ground of appeal.” – Per ABDU DOGO, J.C.A.

 

---

ABANDONMENT OF GROUNDS – FORMULATION OF ISSUES

---

“Learned Counsel for the Respondents argued that the Appellants did not formulate any issue for determination from grounds 5 and 6 of the grounds of appeal contained in the Appellants’ Notice of Appeal referred to above, and as such the Appellants are deemed to have abandoned grounds 5 and 6 of the grounds of Appeal.” – Per ABDU DOGO, J.C.A.

 

---

ORIGINATING SUMMONS – RESTRICTION TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED:

---

“The Appellants should not expect the lower Court to go outside the question for determination submitted to it by the Appellants.” – Per ABDU DOGO, J.C.A.

 

---

FAILURE TO DISPUTE DEPOSITIONS – DEEMED ADMISSION

---

“The Appellants did not react to the Respondents’ deposition quoted above. They are deemed to have admitted those facts.” – Per ABDU DOGO, J.C.A.

 

---

COURT POWERS – LIMITATION WHERE SUBJECT MATTER IS UNCERTAIN

---

“Based on the foregoing analysis therefore, I agree with the lower Court that even if the question for determination submitted by the Appellants is answered in favour of the Appellants, yet the Court cannot grant the relief sought by the Appellants because the Appellants failed to identify the land in respect of which they sought injunction against the Respondents.” – Per ABDU DOGO, J.C.A.

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Evidence Act 2011 (Section 16)

Ogun State High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2014 (Order 3)

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT