FOLAJIN PABIEKUN AND ORS VS GBADAMOSI AJAYI
September 1, 2025SALIHU HONG VS THE STATE
September 1, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1966-06) Legalpedia 04932 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden At Abuja
Wed Jun 29, 1966
Suit Number: SC 69/1965
CORAM
ADEMOLA CHIEF JUSTICE, NIGERIA
BAIRAMIAN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
LEWIS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
LEWIS AND ANOR
APPELLANTS
ABIGAIL MAJEKODUNMI
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE-LETTER OF ADMINISTRATION-PLEADINGS
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The plaintiffs complain of the decision given by Sowemimo J. on 18 May, 1964 in the Lagos High Court Suit 109/1963, dismissing their claims. These are- 1. A declaration that all that piece or parcel of land marked F in the attached probate copy of the will [is the] family property of Jose Domingo, deceased, the common ancestor of both plaintiffs and defendant, An injunction restraining the defendant from erecting fence or building on family compound and An account of all moneys received and rents collected
HELD
That Lorintina was a daughter and Akindele a nephew of the deceased testator; and upon Akindele’s death the portion F left to him by the will became family property and as such the plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that the portion marked F is family property.
ISSUES
Whether there is any rule of evidence which estops a party from pleading differently in a subsequent suit from what his counsel formally pleaded in the former suit on a subject that was not material to the former dispute.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS
‘The pleading of counsel for a party is binding on the party in the suit in which it is delivered for the purposes of that suit, and serves reduce the evidence which need be called in the facts in issue, and thus reduce the costs in the case; and the formal admissions which counsel makes must not be stretched beyond those purposes’- Per Bairamian, J.S.C.
EFFECT OF RES JUDICATA
The facts actually decided by an issue in any suit cannot be again litigated between the same parties, and are evidence between them, and that conclusive, upon a different principle, and for the purpose of terminating litigation; and so are the material facts alleged by one party, which are directly admitted by the opposite party, or indirectly admitted by taking a traverse on some other facts, but only if the traverse is found against the party making it.’ Per Bairamian, J.S.C.
CASES CITED
Boileau v. Rutlin, 2 Exch. Reports 665 at 681 (154 E.R. 657 at 663)
Whitelocke v. Baker, 13 Ves. 510, at 514 (33 E.R. 385 at 386)
STATUTES REFERRED TO
