MOMODU OLUBODUN & 4 ORS V OBA ADEYEMI
May 28, 2025CHIDOZIE IFEKANDU V JULIUS UZOEGWU
May 28, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2008-06) Legalpedia (SC) 81168
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Jun 6, 2008
Suit Number: SC.10/2002
CORAM
GEORGE ADESOLA OGUNTADE, (Lead Judgment) JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
GEORGE ADESOLA OGUNTADE, (Lead Judgment) JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SYLVESTER UMARU ONU, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
NIKI TOB1, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MARIAM MUKHTAR, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IKECHl FRANCIS OGBUAGU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
1.ALHAJI KABIRU ABUBAKAR
2.DAHIRU ADAMU .
APPELLANTS
JOHN JOSEPH & ANOR
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The suit was founded on the negligence of the 1st respondent, the driver of the 2nd respondent. It was pleaded, that on 9/12/91, the 1st respondent negligently drove Fiat trailer registration No. LA 3906 belonging to the 2nd respondent and caused same to collide with the 1st appellant’s Fiat T3 trailer, registration No. LA 6086 MA.
HELD
The Supreme Court held that the Court of appeal was in order when it dismissed the plaintiff’s case intoto as the evidence led was totally at variance with the facts pleaded.
ISSUES
1. Was the Court of Appeal right in finding that the trial Judge made a finding on issues that were not pleaded but did not make findings as to acts of negligence pleaded by the parties?
2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in dismissing plaintiffs’ claims in toto?
3. Was the Court of Appeal right in remitting back to the High Court for determination the amount of damages counter-claimed by the defendants when there was no prior finding that the defendants had, on the evidence adduced, proved negligence against the plaintiffs?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
EVIDENCE OF MATTERS NOT PLEADED GOES TO NO ISSUE
The evidence in respect of matters not pleaded really goes to no issue at the trial and the court should not have allowed such evidence to be given even when such evidence had been wrongly allowed, the trial court should disregard it as irrelevant to the issues properly raised by the pleadings. Per. G. A. OGUNTADE, JSC
It is of course the duty
DUTY OF COUNSEL TO OBJECT TO INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE
of counsel to object to inadmissible evidence and the duty of the court anyway to refuse to admit inadmissible evidence, but if notwithstanding this, evidence is still, through an oversight or otherwise admitted, then it is the duty of the court when it come to give judgment to treat the inadmissible evidence as if it had never been admitted. Per. G. A. OGUNTADE, JSC
PARTIES AND THE COURT ARE BOUND BY THEIR PLEADINGS
It is now settled that in any action in the High Court, the parties are bound by their pleadings. Their case stands or falls by the averments in those pleadings and the evidence adduced in support of these averments. Per. G. A. OGUNTADE, JSC
CASES CITED
1. Njoku v. Erne [1973] 5 SC. 293 at 300-3022. National Investment & Properteis Ltd. v. Thompson Organisation Ltd. & Ors. [1969] NMLR 99 at page 104,3. Erinle v. Adelaja SC.332/1966 of 6th June 19794. Chief Sule Jimbo & Ors. v. Aminu Sanni & Ors. SC. 373/67 of 13th March, 1970.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
