DAVID ITAUMA V FRIDAY JACKSON AKPE-IME - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

DAVID ITAUMA V FRIDAY JACKSON AKPE-IME

MR. MICHAEL A. OMO VS JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMITTEE OF DELTA STATE & ORS
June 25, 2025
MR. MICHAEL A. OMO VS JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMITTEE OF DELTA STATE & ORS
June 25, 2025
MR. MICHAEL A. OMO VS JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMITTEE OF DELTA STATE & ORS
June 25, 2025
MR. MICHAEL A. OMO VS JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMITTEE OF DELTA STATE & ORS
June 25, 2025
Show all

DAVID ITAUMA V FRIDAY JACKSON AKPE-IME

Legalpedia Citation: (2000) Legalpedia (SC) 18446

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Fri Jul 7, 2000

Suit Number: 23/1995

CORAM


MARIAM ALOMA MUKUTAR, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

ADOLPHUS G. KARIBI-WHYTE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

EMMANUEL O. OGWUEGBU JUSTICE , SUPREME COURT

SLYVESTER U. ONU JUSTICE ,SUPREME COURT

ALOYSIUS I. KATSINA-ALU JUSTICE ,SUPREME COURT


PARTIES


DAVID ITAUMA APPELLANTS


FRIDAY JACKSON AKPE-IME RESPONDENTS


AREA(S) OF LAW



SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Plaintiff sued the Defendant claiming for a declaration that there is no valid and/or any lease agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant whereby any grant was made to the Defendant of the land called ANYANKANA or any part thereof.


HELD


The Court held that the appeal succeeds and the judgment of the Court of Appeal which affirmed the decision of the trial Court was set aside. The Plaintiff was entitled to costs assessed at N10, 000.00 in this Court, N500.00 in the trial court and N2, 000.00 in the Court of Appeal.


ISSUES


1.  Did the Courts below advert their minds to the onus and burden of proof and did the Respondent discharge the burden of proving that Appellant granted him a lease of portion of his land in Exhibit B?2. Whether the courts below considered that it was not a part of the Defendant/Respondent’s case as pleaded that he was granted the land in equity or according to the customary law of the people.3.  Having regard to the fact that appellant’s illiteracy was admitted, did the courts below consider clear provisions of Section 3 of the Illiteracy Protection Ordinance Cap. 88 which was in force in 1962?


RATIONES DECIDENDI


A PARTY IS BOUND BY HIS PLEADINGS


“A party in a civil case is bound by his pleadings. Any evidence called by a party which is contrary to his pleadings goes to no issue.” Per KATSINA-ALU, JSC


EVIDENCE ON TITLE IN EQUITY ACCORDING TO NATIVE LAW GOES TO NO ISSUE


“Evidence on title in equity or grant according to native law and custom is strictly immaterial and goes to no issue.” Per KATSINA-ALU, JSC


CASES CITED


Kodilinye v. Odu (1935) 2 WA CA 336Emegokwue v. Okadigbo (1973) 4 SC. 113 at 117Ogbechie v. Onochie (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt. 70) 370Ugo v. Obiekwe (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 99) 566North Western Salt Co. Ltd. v. Electrolytic Alkali Co. Ltd. (1914) AC (H.L) 461Idahosa v Oronsaye (1959) 4 FSCAbiodun & Ors v Adehin (1962) 1 ALL NLR 550 @ 554Imana v Robinson (1979) 3-4 SC 1 @ 9


STATUTES REFERRED TO


Land Instruments Registration Law Cap 62 Laws of the Cross River State Applicable to Akwa Ibom StateEvidence Act 1990Illiterate Protection Law Cap 95 Laws of Cross River State applicable to Akwa Ibom State


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

Comments are closed.