YUSUF AMUDA VS ALHAJI ABDULKADIRI ADELODUN & ANOR
July 3, 2025LIEUTENANT COMMANDER F.S EBOHON (RTD.) VS ATTORNEY GENERAL, EDO STATE AND OTHERS
July 3, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1997) Legalpedia (SC) 82117
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri May 16, 1997
Suit Number: SC. 241/1991
CORAM
M.L. UWAI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
1. FRIDAY KAMALU2. ISHMAEL KAMALU3. ISRAEL KAMALU APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The plaintiffs/appellants, had sued the defendants/respondents, claiming a declaration that the plaintiffs are the only descendants of the late Daba. A declaration to the customary right of occupancy in respect of two parcel of land , general damages for trespass and Perpetual Injunction.
HELD
This appeal lacks merit and it fails. I accordingly dismiss it and award coats assessed at N1,000 in favour of the respondents. ?
ISSUES
(i) Whether the Court of Appeal’s approach to the dispute between the parties as contested in the High Court is justified. (ii) Whether the Court of Appeal was justified in relying on Exhibits ‘C’ and ‘E’ and treating them as raising issue estoppel to set aside the judgment of the trial court. (iii)Whether the Court of Appeal was right to rely on both Exhibits R and S to set aside the judgment of the trial court. ?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ADMISSION
In law it is trite that what is admitted need no further proof. PER ONU JSC
INSTANCES WHERE THE COURT OF APPEAL MUST NOT SUBSTITUTE ITS VIEWS FOR THOSE OF THE TRIAL. COURT .
It is settled law that where the area of findings, as in the instant case, is based on the demeanour of witnesses and credibility thereof, the trial court is muster and the Court of Appeal must not substitute its views for those of the trial. . However, where the issues relate to the evaluation of evidence of witnesses, oral or documentary, the Court of Appeal is in as much a favourable position as the court of trial. PER ONU JSC
ESTOPPEL OF STANDING BY
Estoppel of standing by is but a specie of estoppel by conduct. It is a kind of equitable estoppel and applies where because a party omitted to intervene in a pending action affecting his interest, he is precluded by the result of the action although he was not a party thereto. PER ONU JSC.
CASES CITED
Okparaeke v. Egbuonu [1941] 7 WACA 53Lawal Owosho & Ors. v. Adebowale Dada [1984] 7 SC 149 at 1Chief Frank Ebba & Ors. v. Chief Warri Ogodo & Ors. [1984] 4 SC 84, Motunwase v. Sorungbe [1988] 5 NWLR (pt. 92) 90, Akpapuna & Ors. v. Obi Nzeka II [1978] 11 – 12 SC 129Nzekwu v. Nzekwu [1989] 2 NWLR (pt. 104) 373 Fashanu v. Odofin & Ors. [1978] 4 SC 91 at 94 and Anyaoke v. Adi [1986] 3 NWLR (pt. 31) 731 at 742. Atta v. Bonsra [1957]3 All E.R. 559, Obodo v. Ogba [1987]2 NWLR. (pt. 54) ?
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Evidence Act, Cap. 112 Laws of Federation of Nigeria, 1990.
