E.O FALOLA V. UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC
June 10, 2025RIVERS STATE GOVERNMENT OF NIGERIA V. SPECIALIST KONSULT
June 10, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2005) Legalpedia (SC) 64138
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Tue Feb 15, 2005
Suit Number: 3/2001
CORAM
AKINTOLA OLUFEMI EJIWUNMI , JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
E. A. OLUFEMI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SUNDAY AKINTOLA AKINTAN, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
CHIEF JOSHUA ALAO APPELLANTS
1. ALFA ISSA AKANO2. ILORIN EMIRATE COUNCIL3. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF KWARA STATE RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellants claim was for declaration that the plaintiff was the Oluo of Oke-Oyi having been so appointed by the king-makers and approved by the Kwara State Government, declaration that the 2nd defendant/respondent had no power to appoint an Oluo for the Oke-Oyi, and Injunction prohibiting the 1st defendant/respondent from parading himself as the Oluo of Oke-Oyi. The dispute was in respect of a chieftaincy stool. The trial judge partially found for the plaintiff and granted him all the declarations and injunction refusing only the prayers to declare the Chieftaincy Edict void and refund of the money paid to the government before institution of the suit. The first defendant felt aggrieved with the decision and appealed to the Court of Appeal. The plaintiff also felt unhappy with part of the judgment refusing his prayers and also cross-appealed. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of the first defendant, set aside the decision of the High Court and held that the plaintiff had failed to prove his case and ordered the dismissal of the claims. The Court of Appeal also dismissed the cross-appeal. The appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
The appeal was dismissed. ?
ISSUES
Whether the appellant had indeed proved his case in accordance with his pleadings.Whether the pleadings of the appellant is sufficient for him to sustain his claims aims.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE
“Where the law declares a document inadmissible, the document cannot be admitted in evidence even where there was no objection or even where the parties consent to its admission.” Per DAHIRU MUSDAPHER, JSC
WHAT A PLAINTIFF WHO SEEKS A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT MUST SHOW
“A plaintiff who seeks a declaratory relief must show that he has an interest or right which forms the foundation for that right. The plaintiff must establish a right in relation to which the declaration can be made.” Per DAHIRU MUSDAPHER, JSC
IT IS ONLY THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ISSUES THAT MATTER
“It has been stated many times that the success of an appeal does not depend on the number of grounds of appeal filed nor on the prolixity of the issues formulated and submitted for the determination of an appeal. It is only the substance not the number that matter.” Per DAHIRU MUSDAPHER, JSC
SUPREME COURT IS NOT OBLIGED TO CONSIDER ALL ISSUES RAISED BY THE PARTIES
“It has been held that where an appellate court such as the Supreme Court, is of the view that a consideration of an issue is enough to dispose of the appeal, it is not under any obligation to consider all the other issues posed.” Per DAHIRU MUSDAPHER, JSC
CASES CITED
ETIM VS. EKPE [1983] 1 SCN LR 120.EGBONIKE VS. MUONWEOKWU [1962] ALL NLR 46.CHUKWUMA VS. SHELL [1993] 4 SCNJ 1 at 42 P.T.I. VS ADEREMI [1999] 6 SCNJ. 46 at 73.YADUBA VS. NIGERIAN RENOWNED TRA-DING CO. LTD. [1992] 5 NWLR (Pt 243 535 at 561 OKONJI VS. NJOKANMA [1991] 2 NWLR (Pt. 202) 131 EGBA VS. AGODO [1984] 1 SCNLR.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
NONE
