MOHAMMED MARI KIDA V A.D. OGUNMOLA
June 5, 2025ISAH ONU & ORS VS IBRAHIM IDU & ORS
June 5, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2006) Legalpedia (SC) 11181
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Jun 16, 2006
Suit Number: SC. 412/2001
CORAM
IGNATIUS CHUKWUDI PATS-ACHOLONU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
1. ALHAJI LASISI GBADAMOSI2. YEKINI OLANIYI OLADITI[For themselves and on behalf of Tanimowo Family of Egbeda] APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
This was a dispute as to who of the contending parties was entitled under customary law to be the head chief of a village called Egbeda. Chief Salimonu Bolatito Lawal as plaintiff for and on behalf of Tanimowo family of Egbeda brought a suit against the respondents as the defendants claiming declaration that the Tanimowo family of Egbeda is the family entitled under native law and custom of Egbeda to produce the Ekile of Egbeda to the exclusion of the Piposola family or any other family in Egbeda, and an Injunction restraining the 1st to 4th defendants, their agents and or servants from appointing or recognizing any Baale of Egbeda from the Piposola family. The trial judge in his judgment dismissed the plaintiff’s claims. The plaintiffs were dissatisfied and brought an appeal before the Court of appeal. That court in its judgment dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal. The plaintiffs further appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
The appeal failed and was dismissed.
ISSUES
1. Whether or not having regard to the various strictures made against the judgment of the trial court, their Lordships were right in affirming the decision of the learned trial judge to the effect that the appellants did not prove the custom they relied on in proving their case (Ground 2 of the grounds of appeal) 2. Whether or not the case of the parties that donation of land for the establishment of Egbeda market is not a sufficient proof of the customary land that would entitle the donors to appoint the Baale of Egbeda (Ground 3). ?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
THE PRIMARY DUTY OF A COURT OF TRIAL
“The appraisal of oral evidence and ascription of probative values to such evidence is the primary duty of a court of trial.” Per G.A. OGUNTADE, JSC
CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT
“Unless there are special circumstances shown, this Court will not disturb the concurrent findings of fact made by the court of trial and the Court of Appeal.” Per G.A. OGUNTADE, JSC
CASES CITED
Fashanu V. Adekoya [1974] 6 SC. 83Chinwendu V. Mbamali Anor. [1980] 3-4 SC 31 at 75Lawal V. Orbih [1980] 5-7 SC. 28Ipe Ibodo V. Enorofia & Ors [1980] 5 SC. 42, (2002) 5 SCM 196 Enang V. Adu [1981] 11 12 SC 25
STATUTES REFERRED TO
None
