ALHASSAN MAI YAKI V THE STATE
May 28, 2025CHARLES CHIWENDU ODEDO V INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION
May 28, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2008) Legalpedia (SC) 15671
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Jul 11, 2008
Suit Number: SC. 72/2004
CORAM
JAMES OGENYI OGEBE, (Lead Judgment) JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLA-MUNTAKA COOMASSIE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT.
PARTIES
1. ALHAJI OYEBAMIJI2. MR. LUCKY (Deceased)3. ALHAJI BUSARI BASIRU4. MR. LANRE LAOYE OGUNYEMI5. ALHAJI GANIYU KOLA BALOGUN6. MR. KAYODE OMOTOSHO. APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Respondents sued the Appellants before the High Court of Justice Ibadan claiming the following; N10,000.00 General damages for trespass being presently committed by the defendants on the property of Bandele Ayinla Lawanson (deceased) the father of the plaintiffs lying and being at Orita Bashorun, Aba Road, Ibadan covered by Deed of conveyance registered as 50/50/458 of Lands Registry, Ibadan, and Perpetual Injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, their agents, servants and privies from committing further trespass on the land.
HELD
APPEAL DISMISSED
ISSUES
1. Whether the statute of Limitation or any statute for that matter, is one that the Appellants should specifically plead in their statement of defence or one to be merely inferred by the court from the Respondents’ Writ of Summons and statement of claim and no more as the appellants are contending in this appeal.2. Whether the Plaintiffs/Respondents have discharged the burden of proof placed on them to entitle them to the judgment of the court in this appeal.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
RELIANCE ON STATUTE OF LIMITATION OR ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATE LAW
“These provisions are very clear that a party wishing to rely on a Statute of Limitation or the Administration of Estate Law must specifically plead same. It is not true therefore that such defences should be left to speculation or inference” Per Ogebe, JSC,
CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT
“It is not the practice of this Court to interfere with concurrent findings of facts of both the trial court and Court of Appeal on essentially issues of fact unless there is established a miscarriage of justice or a violation of some principles of law or procedure” Per Ogebe, JSC,
EFFECT OF CONTINOUS TRESPASS
“More importantly, the suit of the respondents was in trespass. For everyday the appellants remained on the land in dispute, which as the evidence revealed, belonged to the respondents, they committed a fresh act of trespass which was actionable. It would therefore not avail them to contend as they did that the cause of action arose on a particular date since they remained on the said land even at the time the suit was being heard” Per Ogebe, JSC,
CASES CITED
Iheanocha v. EjoguAdelaja v. Sonoiki.Idundun v. OkumagbaAlhaji A. Aliyu v Dr. John Adewunmi Sodipo
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Statute of limitation law Cap 64 Laws of Western Region, Section 7 (2)Order 25 Rules 6 (i) and (2) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules of Oyo State
