ONWOCHEI ODOGWU VS OTEMEOKU ODOGWU
July 11, 2025THE ROAD TRANSPORT EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIA VS THE NATIONAL UNION OF ROAD TRANSPORT WORKERS
July 11, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1992) Legalpedia (SC) 95131
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Feb 28, 1992
Suit Number: SC. 153/1987
CORAM
IKECHI FRANCIS OGBUAGU(Lead Judgment) , JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
NIKI TOBIJ, USTICE, SUPREME COURT
ALOMA MARIAM MUKHTAR , JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ALOYSIUS IYORGYER KATSINA-ALU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURTDAHIRU MUSDAHPER JUSTICE, SUPREME SUNDAY AKINOLA
MUHAMMADU LAWAL UWAIS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
1. JONATHAN ENIGWE2. GODFREY UDOKA3. STEPHEN OYUDO4. MOLOKWU ENIGWE5. OYEKWELU AZIAGHAMICHAEL AKAIGWE (For himself and representing members of Akaigwe family)AND1. MOLOKWU ENIGWE2. GODFREY UDOKA (For themselves and on behalf of the members of Ezuka sub-family of Umueze family of Alor) APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
There was a dispute as to the ownership of a piece of property. During the trial, the Trial Judge decided to visit the locus in quo suo motu.
HELD
The Supreme Court held that the learned trial Judge was in error to have decided on the visit suo motu, as it gave the impression that he was doing so in order to help the plaintiffs.
ISSUES
(i) Whether the judgment of the High Court given as it was in matters which were improperly consolidated for trial ought to have been upheld by the court below.(ii) Whether, in the absence of an application by either party to visit the locus in quo the trial, judge is entitled to decide to make such visit.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
EVIDENCE GIVEN DURING VISITS TO THE LOCUS
“It is the law that on such visits to the locus parties and their witnesses are expected to give any explanation of evidence already given only, if so asked by the Judge. If any fresh evidence is to be received it must be on oath and be open to cross-examination. All the rules were broken in this case.” Per UWAIS, J.S.C.
CONSOLIDATION OF ACTIONS
“It is pertinent to observe that the High Court Rules of erstwhile Western and Mid-Western Nigeria contained no provisions for consolidation of actions by order of Court but disjoinder of actions. It was legitimate, therefore; in cases coming from those States to have recourse to English Rules on the issue of consolidation. In the light of the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that a consolidation of actions may be ordered either by consent of the parties or as a matter of expediency. If the judge before whom the cases are to be tried feels that costs and time will best be saved by hearing the cases together.” Per UWAIS, J.S.C.
CASES CITED
Ojiegbe & Anor. v Okwaranyia & Ors., (1962) 1 All N.L.R. (Pt. 4) 605Diab Nasr v Complete Home Enterprises (Nigeria) Ltd., (1977) 5 S.C. 1Obiekweife v Unumma, (1957) 2 F.S.C. 70Chukwuogor v. Obuora, (1987) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 61) 454 at 473R. V. Togbe 12 W.A.C.A. 184Diab Nasr v Complete Home Enterprises (Nigeria) Ltd., (1977) 5 S.C. 1 at 11.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Evidence Act
