DIZENGOFF W. A. (NIG.) LTD V. WILLMERIC (LA CUISSON) LTD
August 20, 2025BEDDING HOLDINGS LIMITED V. ANTHONIA OLUFUNKE CAREW
August 20, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2025-07) Legalpedia 48872 (CA)
In the Court of Appeal
Holden at Lagos
Thu Jul 10, 2025
Suit Number: CA/L/28M/2011(R)
CORAM
Yargata Byenchit Nimpar Justice of the Court of Appeal
Abdulazeez Muhammed Anka Justice of the Court of Appeal
Uwabunkeonye Onwosi Justice of the Court of Appeal
PARTIES
LT-COL DAVID OLUSEGUN JUWAPE (RTD)
APPELLANTS
1. GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE
2. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF LAGOS STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CIVIL PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, INJUNCTIONS, BURDEN OF PROOF, RESTORATION OF STATUS QUO, CONTEMPT OF COURT, PROPERTY LAW, TRESPASS, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Applicant (Lt-Col David Olusegun Juwape Rtd) obtained judgment in his favor at the High Court of Lagos State on March 31, 2010, in Suit No. ID/761/2009 concerning his right of occupancy over Block 79, Plot 10, Magodo Residential Scheme, Lagos. The trial court ordered that the Defendants (Governor of Lagos State and Attorney General) were not entitled to enter the property without the Claimant’s consent and granted an injunction restraining them from entering the property.
The Defendants appealed the judgment by Notice filed on April 6, 2010. While the appeal was pending, between February 23-25, 2019, the Applicant discovered construction work being carried out on his property without his consent. Upon investigation, he found workers actively engaged in construction activities including sinking a borehole, erecting material stores, and digging foundations. The site supervisor, one Femi Adeniyi, informed him they were working for a client named “Mr. Anthony.”
The Applicant filed a motion on March 26, 2019, seeking restoration of status quo, demolition of structures erected on the property, recovery of possession, and payment of demolition costs amounting to N6,000,000. He argued that the Respondents’ issuance of fresh certificate of occupancy and building approval to a third party constituted contempt of court and executive lawlessness.
The Respondents filed a counter-affidavit denying they carried out any development on the land, stating they could not destroy or demolish structures because of the pending appeal.
HELD
1. The application was dismissed.
2. The Court held that the Applicant failed to prove that the Respondents were responsible for the construction activities on the property.
3. The Court found that the Applicant’s evidence showed workers were employed by one “Mr. Anthony,” not the Respondents.
4. The Court held that speculation and conjecture cannot form the basis of court decisions.
5. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof was on the Applicant to establish facts linking the development to the Respondents.
6. The Court noted the delay in filing the application (2020 application for 2019 events) and stated that injunction cannot be granted on completed acts.
ISSUES
1. Should the restoration of the status-quo be ordered in the circumstances?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
WRITTEN ADDRESS – PURPOSE AND IMPORTANCE IN COURT PROCEEDINGS
Address of a Counsel is a succinct articulation of the material facts and law in a case by which each Counsel persuade the Court to accept his own conception of facts and the law in adjudication of the matter before it. In AWOYALE V. OGUNBIYI (1985) LPELR-661(SC) (Pp. 19-20 paras. F), the Court stated that, it means a petition by each Counsel to the Court to accept his own conception of the law and facts in a case.” – Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A.
WRITTEN ADDRESS VERSUS EVIDENCE – DISTINCTION AND LIMITATIONS
Therefore, it must be based on facts and evidence before the Court, because address of a Counsel no matter how fantastic and well garnished, can never take the place of legal evidence. The main purpose of address of Counsel is to assist the Court in doing justice in a matter in respect of which the address is offered.- Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A.
COURT’S DUTY TO DECIDE CASES – WITH OR WITHOUT WRITTEN ADDRESSES
It must be reiterated and borne in mind that addresses by counsel are really meant to assist the Court and the decisions to be reached by the Court are not necessarily predicated on the addresses by counsel. Therefore, with or without written addresses by counsel, the Court has the obligatory duty to reach a decision on any matter before it, so far as there are materials or credible evidence proffered/tendered in aid of the matter for adjudication. – Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A.
ADDRESSES VERSUS EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DECISION MAKING
Addresses are designed to assist the Court… Cases are normally not decided on addresses but on credible evidence. No amount of brilliance in a final speech can make up for the lack of evidence to prove and establish or else disprove and demolish points in issue.- Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A.
BURDEN OF PROOF – ESTABLISHING FACTS FOR LEGAL RIGHTS
By virtue of Sections 131, 132 and 133 of the Evidence Act, whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts shall prove that those facts exist. – Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A.
INADEQUATE EVIDENCE – FAILURE TO ESTABLISH AGENCY RELATIONSHIP
The Appellant stated that the workers told him that the name of the client they were working for is one Mr. Anthony. Unfortunately, Applicant neither sued nor joined Mr. Anthony or any of the workers in the suit. Nowhere were the names of the Respondents mentioned. The workers never said they were agents of the Respondents, and there is no other material particulars linking the development on the land to the Respondents. – Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A.
TRESPASS AND RESPONSIBILITY – BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING CONNECTION
That the suit at the Trial Court was between the Applicant and the Respondents does not mean that any trespass on the land must be committed by the Respondents.- Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A.
GOVERNMENT LAND TRESPASS – AGENCY PRESUMPTION REJECTED
The above conception of the Applicant is a mighty fall. It does not follow that only agents of government can trespass on government land. From the facts and circumstances of this case, Applicant was merely speculating that it was the Respondents that were carrying on the construction on the land. – Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A.
JUDICIAL DECISION MAKING – REJECTION OF SPECULATION AND CONJECTURE
And this Court will resist their attempt to drag it into their realm of conjecture and speculation… Now, it is the law that a Court of law, not being a traditional or spiritual medium, should not base its decision on mere conjecture or speculation but rather on facts and evidence as presented by the parties. – Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A.
COURT’S DUTY – DECIDING ON FACTS AND EVIDENCE
Thus, the duty of the Court is to decide issues on the facts as established before them by evidence and on the law. This is so because a Court is only but a Court of law and fact. It must therefore, at all times avoid relying on conjectures or mere surmise or sympathy and or glorifying mere speculations without any hard concrete evidence in proof thereof.- Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A.
COURT’S JURISDICTION – LIMITATION AGAINST SPECULATION
A Court has no jurisdiction to speculate on conjecture. A Court must confine itself to the evidence before it and give judgment on the evidence.”- Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A.
DISCRETIONARY POWER – EXERCISE OF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Order of injunction is imbued in the exercise of discretionary power of Court, which the law enjoins must be exercised judicially and judiciously. It is not granted in vacuo or as a matter of course or routine. The Applicant must place sufficient materials to the satisfaction of the Court to be entitled to the grant of same. – Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A.
COMPLETED ACTS – LIMITATION ON INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Furthermore, this is a 2020 application. The Applicant has not been able to explain the delay because it is elementary law that injunction cannot be granted on a completed act. – Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Evidence Act (Sections 131, 132 and 133)
2. High Court Laws
