FIDELIS UBANATU V COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
June 26, 2025GBADAMOSI SANUSI OLORUNFEMI & ORS VS CHIEF RAFIU EYINLE ASHO & ORS
June 26, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2000) Legalpedia (SC) 11933
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Jan 21, 2000
Suit Number: SC.198/1992
CORAM
MUHAMMADU LAWAL UWAIS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SALIHU MODIBBO ALFA BELGORE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IDRIS LEGBO KUTUGI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MICHAEL EKUNDAYO OGUNDARE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
EMANUEL OBIOMA OGWUEGBU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SAMSON ODEMWINGIE UWAIFO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
AKINTOLA OLUFEMI EJIWUNMI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
1. EFUWAPE OKULATE (for Demike Family)2. OLANREWAJU OGUNDIPE (for ogundipe family)3. IJEBU REMO LOCAL GOVERNMENT4. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF OGUN STATE5. THE GOVERNOR OF OGUN STATE APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The plaintiff claimed that only members of Oresolu family are entitled to become the Olisa of Makun and that the defendants were not. The defendants challenged the suit on the ground, inter alia, that the matter was about family status over which the High Court had no jurisdiction under the Ogun State High Court law. ?
HELD
The court held that the matter was about membership of family and not family status and in any case, the Ogun State High Court Law cannot limit the jurisdiction of the High Court.
ISSUES
Whether the court below was not in error when it held that the claim of the plaintiffs/respondents was not in the main and in substance one for the determination of an issue of family status.Whether the court below was not in error when it held that in the circumstances of this case, the High Court has original jurisdiction to entertain the suit.Whether the court below was not in error when it held in effect that the judgment of the trial court was not unreasonable having regard to the evidence led in the case.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT CAN ONLY BE INTERFERED WITH UNDER SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
Where there have been concurrent findings of the two lower courts, this court makes it a policy not to disturb them unless special circumstances exist to warrant interference. Such special circumstances include perverse findings, error in procedural or substantive law occasioning a miscarriage of justice- Uwaifo J.S.C
CASES CITED
Adeyemi v Opeyori (1976) 10 NSCC 455Savannah Bank of Nigeria Ltd. v. Pan Atlantic Shipping & Transport Agencies Ltd. (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 49) 212; (1987) 1 SC. 198; (1987) 18 NSCC (pt. 1) 67Chinwendu v. Mbamali (1980) 3-4SC. 31; Onwuka v. Ediala (1989) 1 NWLR (PT. 96) 182; Adebayo v. Ighodalo (1996) 5 NWLR (PT. 450) 507; Ivienagbor v. Bazuaye (1999) 9 NWLR (pt. 620) 552
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The 1979 Constitution?
