CORAM

---

KUTIGI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

ALHAJI MADI MOHAMMED ABUBAKAR

 

APPELLANTS 

---

BEBEJI OIL AND ALLIED PRODUCTS LTD

ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF KANO STATE

GOVERNOR OF KANO STATE

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – CAUSE OF ACTION — ESTOPPEL

 

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The property, subject matter of this suit was built in 1972 by the Arewa Construction Limited for the plaintiff who enjoyed peaceful possession of the building until 1977 when it was mistakenly forfeited to the Kano State Oil and Allied Products Ltd., under The Public Officers and other Persons (Forfeiture of Assets) Order 1977. The property was returned to appellant by the Government after an investigation. However,  the respondent (a successor in interest to Kano State Oil Mills) continued to trespass on the property.

 

 

---

HELD

---

The court held that the appellant was entitled to ownership of the disputed property

 

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether or not the decision of Kano High Court dated 22nd September, 1994 not appealed against by the 1st Respondent to the lower court was not conclusive of the issues raised and determined therein for which the lower court lacks jurisdiction to question its correctness.

2. Whether or not the lower court had jurisdiction to question, challenge, or inquire into the validity of the act of the Military Governor of Kano State as the Appropriate Authority under Decree No.37 of 1968 in returning Appellant’s property to him through Exhibit D and instrument dated 25th September, 1979 before the coming into effect of the 1979 Constitution of Nigeria as Amended more so when none of the Respondents challenged or claimed in court the validity of the instruments returning the said property.

 

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

CAUSE OF ACTION- HOW DETERMINED

---

 

‘It is a cardinal principle of law that to ascertain a cause of action, the immediate materials a court should look at are the writ of summons and the averments in the statement of claim, for it is by examining them that a court can satisfy itself on the actual grouse of a party and the remedy or relief it is seeking from the court. After determining the cause of action then by the very averments, the court can discern the time that a cause of action arose.’ Per Mukhtar JSC

 

WHEN DOES A CAUSE OF ACTION ARISE

‘A cause of action arises from circumstances containing different facts that give rise to a claim that can be enforced in a court of law, and thus lead to the right to sue a person responsible for the existence, either directly or by extension of such circumstances. There must in essence be wrongful act of a party (i.e. the party sued) which has injured or given the plaintiff a reason to complain in a court of law for remedy of consequent damage to the party aggrieved.’ Per Mukhtar JSC

 

CONDITIONS FOR ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATAM

‘It is settled by countless number of judicial authorities that a plaintiff is caught by the plea of estoppel per rem judicatam where –

The parties (or their privies as the case may be) in the previous case are the same as in the present case.

The issue and subject matter or res litigated upon in the previous action is the same as in the present action.

The adjudication in the previous case must have been given by a court of competent jurisdiction.

The previous judgment relied upon must have finally decided the issues between the parties.’ Per Mukhtar JSC

 

 

---

CASES CITED

---

1. Alhaji Usman Dantata v. Mouktar Moha-mmed (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt. 664) 176

2. Adimora v. Ajufo (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 80) 1

3. Akibu v. Oduntan (2000) 13 NWLR (Pt. 685) 446

4. Savage v. Uwechia (1972) 3 S.C. 214 at 221

5. Udeorah v. Nwakonobi (2000) 1 NWLR (Pt.640) 239

6. Ojemen v. Momodu (1983) 1 SC NLR 188).

 

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

None.

 

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT