H. N. O. AWOYEGBE AND ANOR VS CHIEF OGBEIDE - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

H. N. O. AWOYEGBE AND ANOR VS CHIEF OGBEIDE

LATIFU YUSUFU VS THE STATE
July 18, 2025
SUNDAY KAJUBO VS THE STATE
July 18, 2025
LATIFU YUSUFU VS THE STATE
July 18, 2025
SUNDAY KAJUBO VS THE STATE
July 18, 2025
Show all

H. N. O. AWOYEGBE AND ANOR VS CHIEF OGBEIDE

Legalpedia Citation: (1988-03) Legalpedia 44019 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Holden At Lagos

Fri Mar 11, 1988

Suit Number: SC 195/1986

CORAM


NNAMANI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

UWAIS, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

OPUTA, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

WALI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

CRAIG, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT


PARTIES


H. N. O. AWOYEGBE

S. A. ABURIME

APPELLANTS 


CHIEF J. E. OGBEIDE

RESPONDENTS 


AREA(S) OF LAW


CUSTOMARY LAW – LAND TENURE – VISIT TO LOCUS IN QUO – TRESPASS – PERPETUAL INJUNCTION – DAMAGES

 


SUMMARY OF FACTS

The plaintiff was allotted land based on Benin custom. The defendant later trespassed on the plaintiff’s land claiming to have been allotted same land by the Oba.

 


HELD


The Court held that the appeal fails and it is dismissed. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed and it is ordered that the judgment of trial court together with the order for costs is hereby set aside.

 


ISSUES


1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that Ex. F (The Boundary Dispute Determination Edict 1977) was of general application re-validating all allocations in Benin-City made by Ward 17H Allocation Committee be-fore Ex. F was promulgated.

2. Whether the Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in granting title to the Respondent when there was evidence on record that 3rd party interests (i.e. Mr. Onuwaje) who were not parties to the action, would be affected.”

 


RATIONES DECIDENDI


VISIT TO LOCUS IN QUO.


“The import of the words italicized is that the court does not cease to be a court merely because it is sitting in some other place other than its normal habitat. This means that any material statement made in the course of the visit must be recorded and the opposing party given the opportunity of testing that statement, if need be, by cross-examination.” CRAIG, JSC.

 


PROOF OF TITLE UNDER CUSTOMARY LAW


“Where there is competing title to the land, the question to be asked is who has made a good title, and not who first obtained the Oba’s approval.” CRAIG, JSC.

 


CASES CITED


1. Arase v. Arase (1981) 5 SC.(Reprint) 21;(1981) 5 SC. 33

2. K.S. Okeanya v. Madam E Aguebor (1970) 1 All NLR. 1

3. Atiti Gold v. B. Osaseren (1970) 1 All NLR. 132.

4. O. Aikhionbare & Ors. v. U. Ornoregie & Ors. (1976) 12 SC (Reprint) 6;(1976) 12 SC.11 at p.28.

5. A. Ejidike and Anor. v. Christopher Obiora (1951) 13 WACA. 270 at 274.

6. Chief A. Nwizuk v. Chief Waribo Eneyok & Anor. (1953) 14 WACA. Musa Naji v. Mallam S. Shafi (1956) NMLR. 33.

7. Mrs. Aigbe v. Bishop J. Edokpolor (1977) 2 SC (Reprint) 1;(1977) 2 SC.1

8. I. Arase v. P. Arase (1981) 5 SC (Reprint ) 21;(1981) 5 SC. 33.

9. V. Bello v. Magnus Eweka (1981) 1 S.C.(Reprint) 63; (1981)1 SC. 101.

 


STATUTES REFERRED TO


Not Available

 


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT 

Comments are closed.