WADIH CHIDIAK VS A.K.I. LAGUDA
September 4, 2025LAWANI ADOGAN VS AFUWAPE AINA
September 4, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1964-04) Legalpedia 52598 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden At Abuja
Fri Apr 3, 1964
Suit Number: SC 55/1963
CORAM
BRETT JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
TAYLOR JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
BAIRAMIAN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
IBEAKANMO UGWAJIOFO & ANOR
APPELLANTS
MONAGO ONYEKAGBU
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
DECLARATION OF TITLE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
In this case the plaintiff, who described himself as suing on behalf of himself and of Isieke, Agbaobu, brought an action against the two defendants personally, claiming a declaration of title to a piece of land called Alahuhu, and damages for trespass. He obtained judgment on both parts of his claim, and the defendants not satisfied with the judgment of both the high court and the court of appeal, further appealed to the Supreme Court. The defendants submitted that the matter is concluded in their favor by the decision in another case, which they pleaded as constituting res judicata, and to which the Judge did not refer in his judgment. In that case the present plaintiffs sued the present defendants in the Otanzu Native Court for a declaration of title to the land now in dispute. They lost in the Native Court and on appeal to the District Officer and to the Resident, and later they applied to the Governor for leave to appeal out of time. The Deputy Governor refused their application, but they made a fresh application, and the Deputy Governor granted leave to appeal out of time, allowed the appeal and ordered a rehearing de novo.
HELD
The judgment of the High Court was set aside, and it was ordered that the suit be retried before the High Court, each party at liberty to amend his pleadings. The appellants were awarded costs of the appeal assessed at 100 guineas.
ISSUES
Whether the land belongs to the people of Agbaobu (otherwise spelt Abobu or Aborbor) or to the defendants’ community, which is called Amuraw, Amuror or Amuro.
That after the first application for leave to appeal out of time had been refused the Governor was functus officio, and that his Deputy no longer had power to grant a further application.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
STATUE OF AN ORDER REFUSING AN EXTENSION OF TIME
“An order refusing an extension of time within which to appeal is not a decision on the merits, and we do not consider that it constitutes in law an absolute bar to a further application.” Per BRETT J.S.C.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
