ADESINA OKE AND ORS VS SHITTU ATOLOYE AND ORS
July 22, 2025CHIEF HAROLD SHODIPO VS. LEMMINKAINEN AND ANOR
July 22, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1986) Legalpedia (SC) 15713
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Jan 17, 1986
Suit Number: SC. 49/1984
CORAM
ESO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
NNAMANI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
KARIBI-WHYTE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
I.P.D. ABAYE
APPELLANTS
IKEM U. OFILI
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
POSSESSION OF LAND
SUMMARY OF FACTS
In this appeal the 1st respondent /plaintiff in an action against the appellant in the High Court, claimed that the plaintiff is the owner and entitled to the possession/occupation of a piece or parcel of land, an order for possession and Injunction to restrain the defendant from further occupation of the said premises. The plaintiff’s claim was dismissed by the high court. The plaintiff appealed against the decision in the court of appeal. The decision of the trial court was reversed by the Court of Appeal which found that the facts of the present case are different from those relied upon by the learned trial judge to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim. The court of appeal allowed the appeal. It was against this decision that the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
The appeal failed and was dismissed. The decision of the Court of Appeal was confirmed.
ISSUES
The learned Justices of Appeal erred in law in not affirming the judgment of the High Court and dismissing the claim of the plaintiff/respondent for a different reason, having regards (sic) to the position of the law at all times relevant to the proceedings both at the High Court and the Federal Court of Appeal.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
WAYS WITH WHICH OWNERSHIP OF LAND CAN BE PROVED
“It is settled that there are five ways in which the ownership of land can be proved. One of such ways is by the production of authenticated documents.” Per UWAIS, J.S.C.
RIGHT OF SUPREME COURT TO ALLOW FRESH POINT OF LAW
“It is now settled that this court as a court of last resort will allow a fresh point of law to be raised before it, even if such point was not taken in the courts below .” Per UWAIS, J.S.C.
Parties are bound by their pleadings
“It is trite law that parties are bound by their pleadings and they will not be allowed to deviate from them.” Per UWAIS, J.S.C.
CASES CITED
Stool of Abinabina v Enyimadu, 12 W.A.C.A. 171 at p.173
Djukpan v Orovuyovbe & Anor., (1967) All N.L.R. 134 at pp.136-139
Fadiora v Gbadebo & Ors., (1978) 1 L.R.N. 97 at pp. 108-9
Idundun v. Okumagba, (1976) 9-10 S.C. 227 at pp. 246-250
Piaro v. Tenalo & Anor, (1976) 1 F.N.R. 229 at p.234
Mogaji v. Cadbury Nig. Ltd., (1985) 2 N.W.L.R. 393 at p.431.
George & Ors. v. Dominion Flour Mills Ltd., (1963) 1 All N.L.R. 71 at p.77
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Stool of Abinabina v Enyimadu, 12 W.A.C.A. 171 at p.173
Djukpan v Orovuyovbe & Anor., (1967) All N.L.R. 134 at pp.136-139
Fadiora v Gbadebo & Ors., (1978) 1 L.R.N. 97 at pp. 108-9
Idundun v. Okumagba, (1976) 9-10 S.C. 227 at pp. 246-250
Piaro v. Tenalo & Anor, (1976) 1 F.N.R. 229 at p.234
Mogaji v. Cadbury Nig. Ltd., (1985) 2 N.W.L.R. 393 at p.431.
George & Ors. v. Dominion Flour Mills Ltd., (1963) 1 All N.L.R. 71 at p.77
