CORAM

---

M.L. UWAIS, CHIEF JUSTICE NIGERIA

I.L. KUTIGI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

ADOLPHUS GODWIN KARIBI-WHYT, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

ALOMA MARIAM MUKHTAR, CHIEF JUSTICE OF NIGERIA

ESO, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

CHIEF O. N. NSIRIM APPELLANTS

---

RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant sued the Respondent at the trial Court seeking a declaration that the Respondent is the son of Adele Nlerum of Oro-owo in Rumueme and was therefore disentitled from inheriting properties of Akwaka Kpakani, the Plaintiff’s Great Father. The Respondent’s contended that his Mother, the Appellant’s sister, was not married but gave birth to him in the Appellant’s father’s house and by virtue of custom; he is entitled to inheritance to the subject-matter of the suit, a fact which the Appellant could not convincingly disprove. Given the fact that the Appellant’s suit was plagued with contradictions in addition to the fact that the Appellant has borne the surname of Nsirim, the Appellant’s Father, for 40 years, the trial Court held that the Appellant, who did not complain all this while, is estopped from now denying that the Respondent is not the son of Nsirim and dismissed the Appellant’s case. The Appellant  appealed to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court which dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the trial Court.

---

HELD

---

The Appeal was dismissed.

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the Plaintiff/Appellant has proved title to the land in dispute.Whether the Plaintiff/Appellant proved the existence of any marriage between the Appellant’s sister DW2 and the Defendant’s/Respondent’s father, DW1, so as to disentitle the Defendant/Respondent’s from inheriting any part of NSIRIM’s property.Whether on the facts of this case, the pleas of estoppel, laches and Acquiescence avail the Defendant/Respondent.”?

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF LOWER COURTS-DUTY OF SUPREME COURT NOT TO DISTURB

---

“This court will not ordinarily interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial High Court and the Court of Appeal on essentially issues of fact where there is sufficient evidence on record to support them and where there is no substantial error apparent on the record of proceedings unless special circumstances are shown such as violation of some principle of law or procedure or where such findings are shown to be perverse or patently erroneous and a miscarriage of justice will result if they are allowed to stand”. PER IGUH, JSC

---

ESTOPPEL BY CONDUCT-NATURE OF

---

“Where one by his words or conduct willfully causes another to believe the existence of certain state things and induces him to act on that belief so as to alter his own previous position, the former is precluded from averring against the latter a different state of things as existing at the same time. This is how the rule in estoppel by conduct otherwise also known as estoppel by matter in pais has been stated”. PER IGUH, JSC

---

WHERE ORAL EVIDENCE IS AT VARIANCE WITH PLEADINGS-DUTY OF COURT

---

“Parties are bound by their pleadings and evidence which is at variance with the averments in the pleadings goes to no issue and should be disregarded by the court”. PER IGUH, JSC

---

NATIVE LAW AND CUSTOM- MUST BE PROVED EXCEPT WHERE NOTORIOUS

---

“In this regard, the point must be made that native law and custom, otherwise also referred to as customary law, are matters of evidence on the facts presented before the court and must therefore be proved in any particular case unless, of course, they are of such notoriety and have been so frequently followed or applied by the courts that judicial notice thereof would be taken without evidence required in proof”. PER IGUH, JSC

---

CASES CITED

---

Chinwendu v. Mbamali (1980) 3-4 S.C. 31 at 75, Emegokwe v. Okadigbo (1973) 3 S.C. 113 Enang v. Adu (1981) 11-12 S.C. 25 at 42 Gregory Ude v. Clement Nwara and Another (1993) 2 N.W.L.R. (Part 278) 638 at 662-663. Igwego v. Ezengo (1992) 6 N.W.L.R. (Part 249) 561 etc. Joe Iga and others v. Ezekiel Amakiri and others (1976) 11 S.C. 1, Kalu Njoku and others v. Ukwu Eme and others (1973) 5 S. C. 293 Kodilinye v. Mbanefo Odu (1935) 2 .W.A.C.A. 336 at 337 Liadi Giwa and Another v. Erinmilokun (1961) 1 S.C.N.L.R. 377.Reprint) 417. Nwadike v. Ibekwe (1987) 4 N.W.L.R. (Part 67) 718 Odumesu v. African Continental Bank Ltd. (1976) 11 S.C. 261 at 264, Taiwo v. Dosunmu and Another (1965) All N.L.R. (Rep?

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

NONE   ?

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT