ALHAJI ALHARU A. SALAKO & ORS VS CHIEF OLATUNJI DOSUNMU - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

ALHAJI ALHARU A. SALAKO & ORS VS CHIEF OLATUNJI DOSUNMU

OKEMIAMERAYE EGBARAN & ORS VS IGBAKPAN AKPOTOR & ORS
July 2, 2025
CHIEF VICTOR UKWU & ORS VS CHIEF MARK BUNGE
July 2, 2025
OKEMIAMERAYE EGBARAN & ORS VS IGBAKPAN AKPOTOR & ORS
July 2, 2025
CHIEF VICTOR UKWU & ORS VS CHIEF MARK BUNGE
July 2, 2025
Show all

ALHAJI ALHARU A. SALAKO & ORS VS CHIEF OLATUNJI DOSUNMU

Legalpedia Citation: (1997) Legalpedia (SC) 71451

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

Thu Jul 10, 1997

Suit Number: SC.30/1991

CORAM


A.B. WALI

A.I. IGUH

U. MOHAMMED

OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL


PARTIES


ALHAJI ALARU A. SALAKOSALAMI ORONTIMOSIJDI AINAKEHINDE KASALI(For themselves and on behalf of Owusa family, Iperu Remo) APPELLANTS


CHIEF OLATUNJI DOSUNMU RESPONDENTS


AREA(S) OF LAW



SUMMARY OF FACTS

LAW OF EVIDENCE, ORAL EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, APPEAL (PROERTY LAW, SALE OF LAND, WHEN VOIDABLE, APPEAL)
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The plaintiff/appellant sued defendant/respondent that he is entitled to the Statutory Right of Occupancy of the land in dispute amongst other reliefs. The Trial Court gave judgment in favour of the defendant. Dissatisfied the plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Still dissatisfied he has appealed to this Court.


HELD


The appeal therefore succeeds and is hereby allowed. The judgments of the Court of Appeal and the trial court are hereby set aside together with the orders of costs made therein, and in place thereof judgment is entered in favour of the appellants for the reliefs sought in paragraph 47 (a), (c) and (d) and same are hereby granted


ISSUES


Whether the court below was not in error when it held that the Appellants ought to have obtained the leave of the trial court before instituting this suit. Was there a valid sale of the parcel of land in dispute to the respondent by the accredited members of Owusa Family of Iperu Remo in accordance with the customary law of Iperu Remo? If the answer on Issue I supra is in the negative, what then are the effects of Exhibits F and M?


RATIONES DECIDENDI


CASES CITED


Adegbite v. Lawal 12 WACA 398Amusa Gbadesare v. Aina Edu & Ors. WACA 32 (1995) of 15/2/56Mba Nta & Ors. v. Ede Nwede Anigbo & Ors. (1972) 5 SC 156.Fashanu v. Adekoya ( 1974) 1 All NLR (Pt. 1) 35 at 91Balogun v. Agboola (1974) 10 SC 111 Ebba v. Ogodo (1984) 4 SC 84 at 90 (1984) I SCNLR 372Okolo v. Uzoku (1978) 4 SC 77 at 86Abusomwan v. Merchantile Bank(Nig.) Ltd. (No 2) (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 60) 207


STATUTES REFERRED TO


Not Available.|


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT 

Comments are closed.