HUSSAINI YELWA v. CHIEF OKECHUKWU DARLINGTON & ORS - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

HUSSAINI YELWA v. CHIEF OKECHUKWU DARLINGTON & ORS

ALIYU ARDO v. THE STATE & ORS
May 5, 2021
ZERDOON KOBO & ORS v. BERNARD ATILE BIAM
May 5, 2021
ALIYU ARDO v. THE STATE & ORS
May 5, 2021
ZERDOON KOBO & ORS v. BERNARD ATILE BIAM
May 5, 2021
Show all

HUSSAINI YELWA v. CHIEF OKECHUKWU DARLINGTON & ORS

HUSSAINI YELWA v. CHIEF OKECHUKWU DARLINGTON & ORS

(2021) Legalpedia (CA) 21151

In the Court of Appeal

HOLDEN AT MAKURDI

Tuesday, March 30, 2021

Suite Number: CA/MK/179/2018

CORAM

IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE

CORDELIA IFEOMA JOMBO-OFO

YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR

HUSSAINI YELWA  ||  CHIEF OKECHUKWU DARLINGTON

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

Land Law

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant and the Respondents’ Landlords/LandLadies in Consolidated Suits Numbers MHC/53/2008 and UAC/CV/05/2008 sued each other at the High Court of Benue State, Makurdi Division and in the Upper Area Court respectively, for declaration of title to land and other reliefs. The Court granted the Reliefs sought by the Plaintiffs in Suit No. MHC/53/2008 except the 4th Relief which was the prayer for the cost of the action. In respect of the Claim of the Defendants who were Plaintiffs in the Upper Area Court Suit No. UAC/CV/05/2008, the trial Court held that since the dispute was over the same property and having held that the Plaintiffs were the beneficial owners thereof, no Order could be made in favour of the Defendants regarding the same property. Dissatisfied with the Judgment of the trial Court, the Defendants in Suit Number MHC/53/2008 and Plaintiffs in Suit Number UAC/CV/05/2008 appealed to this Honourable Court, which resolved all the issues raised in favour of the Appellants and held that the Appeal was meritorious. Accordingly, Suit No. MHC/53/2008 was dismissed whereas the reliefs sought in Suit No. UAC/CV/05/2008 were granted and the disposition of the disputed property to the Respondents was declared null and void. Dissatisfied with the Judgment of the Court of Appeal, the Plaintiffs/Respondents appealed to the Supreme Court. The Appellant who was aware that the Original Judgment-Debtors/Respondents’ appeal was pending together with the application for stay of execution or interlocutory injunction in the Supreme Court proceeded to levy execution not on the main parties (Respondents) but on the purported Judgment-Debtors/Respondents hence this appeal.

 

||INTERESTED IN GETTING SUMMARIES LIKE THIS FOR FREE?||

||Click Here||

HELD

Appeal Dismissed

Issues Of Determination:

“Whether or not by virtue of the admitted facts that the respondents are tenants of the judgment-debtors in appeal no: ca/mk/206/2013, they are not bound by same judgment and are contemptuous in breach of orders/processes that executed same judgment?”

RATIONES

PARTIES TO A SUIT -WHETHER NONE PARTIES TO A SUIT CAN BE BOUND BY THE JUDGMENT OF A COURT

“In this wise, the authority of Etim vs. Etta (2014) All FWLR (Pt.712) 1808 at 1820-1821 at para. As also reported in (2012) LPELR-9691 (CA) at pages 18 to 20 paras. G-F per Tine Tur, J.C.A. (now of blessed memory) as well as the Supreme Court decision in the celebrated case of J.S.C., Cross-River State vs. Young (2014) All FWLR (Pt.714) 40 at 60 para. E; on the trite position of law that only parties to a Suit can be bound by the Judgment of the Court in such a Suit and that no person will be adversely affected by the Judgment in an action to which he was not a party because of the injustice of deciding an issue against him in his absence which dictum is predicated on the philosophical basis of the rule of law and to safeguard the fundamental principle of natural justice as encapsulated in the Latin Maxim of “Audi Alteram Partem” (hear the other side). I am not oblivious of the exceptions to the general rule as enunciated in the cases of Dike-Ogu vs. Amadi (supra) citing Ekpoke vs. Usilo (supra) as far as privies are concerned but I reiterate in total agreement with the learned Counsel to the Respondents that landlords and tenants as in this case are not included in the definitions contained in the various Texts and the decided authorities cited by the learned Counsel to the Appellant. For the avoidance of doubt, the term “tenant” is defined by Section 2 of the Recovery of Premises Act, Cap.44, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990 as any person occupying premises whether on payment of rent or otherwise but does not include a person occupying premises under a bona fide claim to be the owner of the premises.”

PRIVY- MEANING AND CATEGORIES OF PRIVY (IES)

“There is also no doubt that in Chief Amadi Dike-Ogu & Ors. vs. Owhonda Frank Amadi & & Ors. (2008) LPELR-8659 (CA); this Court per Galadima, J.C.A. (as he then was at pp.29-30, paras. D-F) held thus: “Parties in the subsequent action may be privies to the previous action. Privies in law are those who derive title from and also claimed through that party. Privies are in three categories or classes: (a) Privies in blood; (b) Privies in law; and (c) Privies in estate. The first are blood relation like ancestors and heirs; the second and third are executors, administrators, vendors and purchasers. See Coker vs. Sanyaolu (1976) 9-10 AC.” –

PRIVY – LEGAL EFFECT OF PRIVY AND ITS EXCEPTION TO THE DOCTRINE OF NATURAL JUSTICE PRINCIPLE

“The emeritus Law Lord of the Apex Court as he now is, quoted with the approval the dictum of Obaseki, JSC in Ekpoke vs. Usilo (1978) 6-7 SC 187 at 200-201; who re-stated the legal effect of privy and its exception to the doctrine of natural justice principle, that every man must be heard on legal principle affecting him and that the learned Law Lord of blessed memory had also posited that the general rule is that no person is to be adversely affected by a Judgment in an action to which he was not a party because of the injustice in deciding an Issue against him in his absence. According to him: “But this general rule admits of two exceptions; one is that a person who is a privy with the parties, a “privy” as he is called is bound equally with the Parties, a “privy” as he is estopped by res judicata; the other is that a person may have so acted as to preclude himself from challenging the judgment in which case he estopped by his conduct. Nigerian Law recognizes that the conduct of a person may be such that he is estopped from re-litigating the issues all over again. This conduct sometimes consists of active participation in the proceedings. For instance, when a tenant is sued for trespass on his neighbour’s land and he defends it on the strength of the Landlord’s title and does so by the direction and authority of the landlord. On other occasions, the conduct may consist of taking actual benefit from Judgment in the previous proceedings. See In re: Lart Wilkinson vs. Blades (1896) 2 Ch. 788; Talabi vs. Adeseye (1972) 8-9 SC 20; and Okoromaka vs. Odiri (1995) 7 NWLR (Pt.408) 411 at 437.” –

STATUS(ES) REFERRED TO

Court of Appeal Act, 2004|Recovery of Premises Act, Cap.44, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990|Supreme Court Act, 2004|

COUNSELS

O. Alu, Esq.For Appellant(s)|M. M. Unum, Esq. with him, E. A. Uzege, Esq.For Respondent(s)|

 

 

||INTERESTED IN GETTING SUMMARIES LIKE THIS FOR FREE?||

||Click Here||

Comments are closed.