CORAM

---

Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju -Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Tijjani Abubakar Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Haruna Simon Tsamman-Justice of the supreme court

Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru-Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Mohammed Baba Idris -Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

---

PARTIES

---

1. HON. OLADELE OLOWE

2. MR. ISSAC OLOWE

(for themselves and behalf of Gidigbi family of Ilesha)

APPELLANTS 

---

CHIEF ADEGBOYE AJEWOLE ALUKO

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

PROPERTY LAW, LAND LAW, RES JUDICATA, LEGAL PRACTITIONERS ACT, ORIGINATING PROCESS, ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS, EVIDENCE LAW, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, APPEAL, STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, CONCURRENT FINDINGS, TRESPASS, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This case has its roots in litigation dating back to 1950 when the ancestors of the Respondent instituted Suit No. 69/50 against the ancestors of the Appellants before the Divisional (Customary) Court in Ilesa for a declaration of title to land. Judgment was delivered in favour of the Respondent’s ancestors and no appeal was filed.

Approximately 30 years later, the Appellants’ family instituted Suit No. HIL/34/81 against the Respondent’s family seeking a declaration of title to farmland at Okutuope, along Ilesa/Akure Express Road, damages for trespass, and perpetual injunction. On 16th July 1982, the trial Court delivered judgment in favour of the Appellants, awarding N500 damages and granting an injunction.

The Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal in Appeal No. CA/I/118/86. On 15th June 1993, the Court of Appeal held that the Appellants failed to prove their radical title and that the trial Court erred in rejecting the Respondent’s defence of res judicata. The Court held that all essential elements of res judicata were established based on the 1950 judgment. The appeal was allowed, the trial Court’s judgment was set aside, and the Appellants’ claim was dismissed. The Appellants did not appeal this decision.

Subsequently, on 13th May 1994, the Respondent instituted Suit No. HIL/66/94 seeking declaration of title to the same farmland, damages for trespass of N500,000, and injunction. The Respondent relied on the previous judgments and called two witnesses, including a Senior Registrar who tendered certified copies of previous court records. The Appellants called one witness and tendered no exhibits.

On 10th May 2001, the trial Court granted all reliefs sought by the Respondent. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellants’ appeal on 8th December 2014, leading to this appeal to the Supreme Court.

 

---

HELD

---

1.The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit.

2.The Court held that the statement of claim was competently signed as both Akeredolu and Olujimi were identifiable as legal practitioners duly called to the Nigerian Bar, satisfying the requirements of the Legal Practitioners Act.

3.The Court found that no order for retrial was made in Appeal No. CA/I/118/86, and the decision was final and binding since no appeal was filed. The instant suit was based on fresh acts of trespass and did not constitute abuse of process.

4.The Court held that the identity of the land was not in dispute as evidenced by the parties’ pleadings, and concurrent findings of fact on this issue would not be disturbed.

5.The Court upheld the application of res judicata based on the 1950 judgment as affirmed in the 1993 Court of Appeal decision, which remained final and binding.

6.The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts and awarded costs of N1,000,000 against the Appellants.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1.Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the judgment of the High Court when the Respondent’s statement of claim was fundamentally incompetent having been signed by the law firm of Akeredolu & Olujimi instead of a legal practitioner as recognised by law?

2.Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the Respondent’s suit filed during the subsistence of an alleged order of retrial in Suit No. HIL/34/81 does not constitute abuse of Court process?

3.Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right when they held that the identity of the land in dispute was not an issue in the case, thereby relieving the Respondent of the duty to tender a survey plan?

4.Whether the Court of Appeal was right to rely on the judgment in CA/I/118/86 to conclude that the judgment of the customary Court in 69/50 constitutes res judicata between the parties?

5.Whether the Court of Appeal was right to affirm the judgment of the trial Court having regard to the totality of evidence before the trial Court?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

INCOMPETENT ORIGINATING PROCESS – FUNDAMENTAL DEFECTS AND JURISDICTION

---

“An originating process, also referred to as an initiating process, is the fundamental legal instrument that sets judicial proceedings in motion, whether by way of a suit or an appeal. Given its pivotal role in commencing an action, its legal significance cannot be overstated. The competence of an originating process is not merely procedural but jurisdictional in nature. Therefore, any fundamental defect in its form or substance renders the entire action incompetent, akin to building on quicksand.” – Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.

 

---

EFFECT OF INCOMPETENT ORIGINATING PROCESS ON PROCEEDINGS

---

“Jurisdiction is the bedrock upon which judicial authority rests, and it is activated only through a properly constituted originating process. Consequently, an incompetent originating process, such as a defective writ of summons, taints the entire proceedings, rendering every subsequent step including filed processes and judicial decisions, null and void ab initio. In legal contemplation, such a defective process is inchoate, devoid of life and incapable of sustaining any valid adjudication.” – Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.

 

---

INTERPRETATION OF LEGAL PRACTITIONERS ACT – LEGISLATIVE INTENT

---

“Applying the literal rule of statutory interpretation which requires that the words of a statute be given their plain, ordinary, and grammatical meaning, with emphasis on what the law expressly states, it becomes evident that only a person whose name is duly entered in the Roll of Legal Practitioners maintained by the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Nigeria is entitled to practice as a barrister and solicitor in Nigeria pursuant to the provisions of Section 2(1) and Section 24(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act.” – Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.

 

---

REQUIREMENT FOR SIGNING COURT PROCESSES – IDENTIFIABLE PRACTITIONERS

---

“Consequently, once the name of a person is identifiable as a legal practitioner, the requirements of Section 2(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act are deemed to have been satisfied. This provision serves as a safeguard to uphold the integrity of the legal profession and to protect the public from unqualified representation.” – Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.

 

---

DEFINITION OF ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS

---

“The Black’s Law Dictionary Ninth Edition at page 10 gave the definition of the word ‘abuse’ as ‘A departure from legal or reasonable use; misuse.’ The phrase ‘Abuse of process’ was also defined at page 11 as: ‘The improper and tortuous use of a legitimately issued Court process to obtain a result that is either unlawful or beyond the process’s scope.'” – Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.

 

---

APPELLATE COURT ALTERNATIVE REASONING – ANTICIPATION OF FURTHER APPEAL

---

“In Appeal No. CA/I/118/86, the Court below provided its views on all the issues raised by the parties, anticipating that if its decision terminating the appeal were to be overturned on further appeal, its reasoning on those issues would remain available for consideration as a penultimate Court whose decisions are subject to review by this Court. This approach is consistent with established judicial practice, ensuring that all relevant issues are thoroughly examined and properly articulated.” – Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.

 

---

FAILURE TO APPEAL – ESTOPPEL AND BINDING EFFECT

---

“It is settled that a party is estopped by his failure to appeal against an adverse finding of a fact relevant to the issue.” – Per this Court in ABUBAKAR VS. BEBEJI OIL AND ALLIED PRODUCTS LTD & ORS (as quoted by MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.)

 

---

IDENTIFICATION OF DISPUTED LAND – REQUIREMENT FOR CLEAR IDENTIFICATION

---

“It is a settled legal principle that land subject to a claim for a declaration of title must be clearly and adequately identified. It is a fundamental requirement that a plaintiff asserting ownership of land must establish the precise identity of the disputed land to enable the Court to ascertain its exact location and extent before granting judgment in favour of the claimant upon proof of title.” – Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.

 

---

WHEN IDENTITY OF LAND IS NOT IN DISPUTE

---

“where the identity of the land is not in dispute or where there is enough evidence for the Court to infer the identity of the land, proof is not necessary. In such a situation, the plaintiff has no burden to prove the identity of the land.” – Per this Court in GBADAMOSI VS. DAIRO (as quoted by MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.)

 

---

DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA – FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS

---

“Invariably, the term res judicata is a 17th century Latin maxim which denotes a thing or issue adjudicated or settled by judicial decision. It’s an affirmative defence thereby barring the same parties from instigating a subsequent law suit regarding the same claim, or any other claim at all arising from the same transaction or series of transactions, that could have been but was not, raised in the first suit. The doctrine of res judicata is fundamentally predicated upon three elements: (i) an earlier decision on the issue; (ii) a final judgment on the merits; and (iii) the involvement of the same parties, or parties in privy with the original parties.” – Per this Court in PATRICK VS. INEC & ORS (as quoted by MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.)

 

---

BINDING NATURE OF COURT ORDERS – ABSOLUTE COMPLIANCE

---

“It is elementary to further emphasize that an order of a competent Court of law, no matter its nature is absolute and binding on all and sundry without question until it is legally and legitimately set aside by a competent Court of appellate jurisdiction. The fact of its being final or interim did not therefore affect its application and effectiveness.” – Per this Court in KUBOR & ANOR VS. DICKSON & ORS (as quoted by MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.)

 

---

RELIANCE ON PRIOR JUDGMENT – FOUNDATION FOR TRESPASS ACTION

---

“It is a well-settled principle of law that a party who has obtained a prior judgment in their favour may rely on such judgment as the foundation for an action in trespass or as the basis for instituting a fresh suit seeking additional reliefs beyond those granted in the previous case.” – Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.

 

---

CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT – STANDARD FOR APPELLATE INTERFERENCE

---

“It is the attitude of this Court that it does not make a practice of interfering with the concurrent findings of facts by the trial and intermediate Courts and this Court would only interfere where there are exceptional circumstances that warrants the disturbance of the findings such as where the findings has resulted in a miscarriage of justice or some violation of some principles of law or the same is demonstrated to be perverse.” – Per this Court in MOHAMMED VS. STATE (as quoted by MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.)

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Legal Practitioners Act, Cap L11, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004

2. Oyo State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 1988

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT