AFRICAN PETROLEUM LTD. VS J. K. OWODUNNI
July 11, 2025DARE KADA VS THE STATE
July 11, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1991-11) Legalpedia 72355 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden at Lagos
Fri Nov 15, 1991
Suit Number: SC.184/1989
CORAM
A.G. KARIBI-WHYTE – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
S. KAWU – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
P. NNAEMEKA-AGU – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
A.B. WALl – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
U. OMO – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
A.G. KARIBI-WHYTE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
S. KAWU, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
P. NNAEMEKA-AGU, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
A.B. WALl, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
U. OMO, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
JOHN BANKOLE AND ORS
APPELLANTS
MOJIDI PELU AND ORS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
APPEAL- CONCURRENT FINDING OF FACTS BY APPEAL – WHAT MUST BE SHOWN BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT CAN INTERFERE WITH?
SUMMARY OF FACTS
In claim for declaration to title to land brought by the appellant as plaintiff at the trial court, the sought injunctive reliefs against the respondents (defendant). The claim was dismissed and the plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal which affirmed the judgment of the trial court. The Plaintiff has now appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
The appeal was dismissed.
ISSUES
1. Whether the lower court, in considering the appeal, considered the proper and valid grounds of appeal put forward by the plaintiffs and if not whether the judgment of the lower court can stand?
2. Did the lower court not misapprehend what constitutes the land in dispute having regard to the pleadings and evidence?
3. Whether the lower court did not wrongly find that the plan in Exhibit’F is the plaintiffs’ plan?
4. If issues 2 and 3 above are answered in the affirmative, did the lower court not misplace the onus of proof with respect to proof of ownership, possession and tendering of a composite plan?
5. Having held that the plaintiffs were in possession of the land in dispute through their tenants, was the further finding that they did so as tenants of the defendants in line with the pleadings and evidence before the court?
6. Is the principle laid down in Kojo v. Bonsie (1957)1 WLR 1223 as to proof of traditional ownership of land not in favour of the plaintiffs than the defendants on the evidence?
7. Did the customary court have jurisdiction to determine the claim in Exhibit J and if not, can the proceedings and judgment therein be relied upon as estoppel on the facts of this case?
8. Assuming that Exhibit J is valid (which is denied) can the judgment be relied upon as creating estoppel against the plaintiffs, in event, having regard to the facts of this case?
9. Was res judicata with regard to Suit No. IK 76/68 (Exhibit C2), an issue in the two lower courts and if not, was it proper for the lower court to raise it suo motu and determine the same in its judgment without first giving the parties the opportunity of being heard on the point?
10. Could the judgment in Suit No. IK/76/68 Exhibit C2) create res judicata against the plaintiffs having regard to the times of commencement of both suits and the conditions under which res judicata applies?
11. Are the plaintiffs not entitled to judgment in terms of their claims on the balance of probabilities vis-a-vis the defence?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ONUS OF PROOF IN A CLAIM FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE
“The normal onus of proof in a claim for a declaration of title is still applicable, to wit, that the onus is on the plaintiffs to prove their case and in so doing they must rely on the strength of their case and not on the weakness of the defendants, whose duty is only to defend the action and no more..”(Per Uche Omo, JSC)
WHEN NEW ISSUES CAN BE RAISED ON APPEAL
“…..an appellant will not be allowed to raise on appeal a question which was not raised or tried or considered by the trial court, but where the question involves substantial point of law, substantive or procedural and it is plain that no further evidence could have been adduced which would affect the decision on them, the court will allow the question to be raised and the points taken and prevent obvious miscarriage of justice”. (Per Uche Omo, JSC)
CASES CITED
1. Ogbuanyinya v Okudo No. 2(1990) 4 NWLR (Pt 146) 551.
2. Elias v. Suleiman (1973)1 All NLR (Pt 2) p. 288.
3. Thomas v. Preston Holder (1946)12 WACA 78.
4. Kodilinye v. Odu, 2 WACA 336.
5. Ijayi v. Eyigbe (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 61)523.
6. Obioso v Okoye (1989)2 N.WL.R. (Pt 119)80.
7. Famuroti v. Agbeke (1991)5 NWLR (Pt .189)7.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. The Customary Courts Law (Western Region) 1959
