CORAM

PARTIES

1.    CHIEF MUTIU OGUNDARE(Baale of Shangisha/Magado community)(Substituted by Order of Honourable Courtof 17th October, 2016)2.    CHIEF KAREEM ABOGUNLOKO  APPELLANTS

1.THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE(Substituted by order of court of 17th October, 2016)2.DIRECTOR GENERAL, LAND MATTERS LAGOS STATE3.HONOURABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL & COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE, LAGOS STATE  RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellants as  Claimants at the Lagos State High Court by an amended statement of claim claimed  for a monetary declaration of N 100 Million (One Hundred Million Naira)  as compensation for the acquisition of the landed property situate and lying  at Shangisha- Magodo Scheme II Lagos State. The Respondent brought before the Court an application challenging the suit on the grounds that the Court had no jurisdiction on the matter; that the action was statute barred; that the Claimants lacked locus standi; and that the suit is incompetent and constitutes an abuse of Court process. The application was dismissed by Hon. Justice Olateru-Olagbegi of the Lagos State High Court, but upon re-assigning the case to Hon. Justice K.O. Alogba, he allowed the application and dismissed the claims of the Appellants on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter. Dissatisfied with the conflicting decisions of the Lagos State High Court, the Appellant has filed an appeal before this Court contending that the Lagos State High Court having ruled earlier that the suit was not statute barred and the court had jurisdiction, can the same court reverse itself on the same issues?

HELD

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUES

?    Whether the trial Judge has power to sit as an Appellate Court on issues already considered and decided by his learned brother of the same court??    Whether the trial judge was right to have declined jurisdiction to entertain the Appellants’ suit??    Whether the Appellants suit was statute barred having been instituted in 1996 on the promise made by the 1st respondent in his letter of 21st January, 1994 (Exhibit C3′)??    Whether Exhibit C3′ (1st Respondents letter of 21st January, 1994) created promissory estoppel rather than contract and whether the Respondent are not bound by the promise contained in Exhibit C3??    Whether the trial Judge properly evaluated Evidence before arriving at his decision in the Judgment?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT