SOCIETE GENERALE BANK (NIG.) LTD V JOHN ADEBAYO ADEWUNMI
June 16, 2025SUNDAY UFOMBA V WOSU AHUCHAOGU
June 16, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2003) Legalpedia (SC) 27260
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Apr 11, 2003
Suit Number: SC.108/1998
CORAM
PIUS OLAYIWOLA ADEREMI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT.
M. L. UWAIS, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
M. E. OGUNDARE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
A. I. IGUH, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
A. I. KATSINA-ALU, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
1. CHIEF IGBOAMA EZEKWESILI2. PETER NWORA3. DENNIS AZI4. CYPRAIN MBAMALU5. MRS. PATIENCE CHIEJINA6. EDWIN CHIEJINA7. ENENDU OKWUDINKA8. AKWUBA IZEGBU9. OKEKWU NWOKOYE10. OBIDE ONUSELOGU11. RICHARD NWOSU12. E. C. ANYAWUTAKA13. PARRICK OBIEFUNA(FOR THEMSELVES AND ON BEHALF OF MEMBERS OF ABO AMAWA COMMUNITY IN OGBUNIKE) APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal Enugu, delivered on the 20/1/1998 dismissing the appellants’ appeal against the judgment of High Court of Anamba State presided over by Amaizu J, (as he then was) on the 27/10/1994.?
HELD
Appeal failed and was dismissed?
ISSUES
“1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in upholding the decision of the trial Court that the joinder of claim for recovery of possession and claim for damages for trespass was in order when the law is trite that the joinder of the two claims is contradictory and thus void.2. Whether the court below has not misconceived the issue of admission, Section 46 Evidence Act, and undue probative value to exhibits 1-12 put forward by the appellants and by default or erroneously affirmed the trial court’s determination of the location and boundaries of the land in dispute to the prejudice of the appellants.3. Whether in failing to consider and determine the issues of laches and acquiescence put forward by the appellants, the Court of Appeal had not acted in breach of fair hearing to the detriment and prejudice of the appellants. Alternatively, is the defence of laches and acquiescence not available to the appellants having regard to the evidence before the trial Court?’?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CLAIM FOR RECOVERY OF LAND CANNOT BE JOINED WITH A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FOR TRESPASS ON THE SAME LAND
Now, there is no dispute and it is common sense that a claim for recovery of land cannot be joined with a claim for damages for trespass on the same land. A claim in trespass to land is rooted and or based on exclusive possession or right to possession, thus trespass is always against the person not in possession. Per D. Musdapher J.S.C.
POSSESSION BY TRESPASS
A trespasser does not acquire possession of land by his act of trespass. Per D. Musdapher J.S.C.
CASES CITED
ONIAH VS. ONYIA (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 99) 514.AROMIRE VS. AWOYEMI (1972) ANLR 105?
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The Evidence Act.?
