OLUWATIMILEHIN IFARAMOYE vs THE STATE
April 16, 2025OLABAMIJI MICHAEL KAYODE v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
April 16, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2017) Legalpedia (SC) 07105
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
HOLDEN AT ABUJA
Thu Jan 26, 2017
Suit Number: SC.113/2007
CORAM
PHILIP
PARTIES
MICHAEL SUNDAY OROJA GANIYU OKE ODU-OROJA TIMOTHY OLUFEMI ODU-OROJA DAVID AYINDE ODU-OROJA TIMOTHY KOKUMO ODU-OROJA (For themselves and on behalf of Odo-Oroja, Orisabiaje and Ogunwunmi Family of Meran in Agege) APPELLANTS
EBENEZER ILO ADENIYIJONATHAN ADENIYI O. AKINDE OLANIRESAKIRUDEEN IBRAHIM (For themselves and on behalf of Eshilo Family). RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
Nil
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellants’ sought before the High Court a declaration to an entitlement to a customary right of occupancy in respect of farmland at Meran Village in Agege, Lagos and the total sum of N230,478,50 against the Respondents being special and general damages suffered by the Appellant as a result of the destruction of the Appellant’s crops by the Respondents. They also asked for an order of perpetual injunction restraining the Respondents from further acts of trespass on the land in dispute. The Defendants counter-claimed for a declaration that they are entitled to the customary right of occupancy of the land in dispute. The Court of trial granted the Appellants’ claim preferring their traditional history but dismissed Respondents’ counter claim without making a formal pronouncement. The Court of Appeal allowed the Respondents’ appeal and remitted the case for retrial on the ground that the trial judge failed to make a pronouncement on the counter-claim thereby rendering the Judgment incomplete. Aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Appellants filed a notice of appeal to this Court.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the respondents’ counter-claim was not considered and the failure to make a specific/formal pronouncement thereon occasioned a miscarriage of justice thereby resulting in a violation of the respondents’ fundamental human right. Whether the Court of Appeal could not have invoked its powers under Section 16 Court of Appeal Act to rectify the error?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
COUNTER-CLAIM – MEANING AND PURPORT OF A COUNTER-CLAIM
“There is a rich case law on the meaning and purport of a counter-claim and I shall have recourse to a few in aid at this point in time. See Effiom v Iron Bar (2000) 1 NWLR (Pt. 678) 341where it was held thus-
“A counter-claim is an independent action and it needs not relate to or be in anyway connected with the plaintiffs’ claim or raise out of the same transaction. It is not even analogous to the plaintiff’s claim. It need not be an action of the same nature as the original claim. A counterclaim is to be treated for all purposes for which justice requires it to be treated as an independent action.”
See also the case of Okonkwo v. C. C. B. (2003) FWLR (Pt.154) 457 at 508, the nature of a counter-claim had been clearly spelt out as follows:-
“Counter-claim though related to the principal action is a separate and independent action and our adjectival Law requires that it must be filed separately. The separate and independent nature of a counter claim is borne out from the fact that it allows the defendant to maintain an action against the plaintiff as profitably as in a separate suit. It is a weapon of defence which enables the defendant to enforce a claim against the plaintiff as effectually as an independent action. As a matter of law a counter claim is a cross action with its separate pleadings, judgments and costs.”
See also Hassan v Regd. Trustees Baptist Convention (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt.308) 679 at 690, wherein it was held that:-
“The fate of a counter claim being an independent action does not depend upon the outcome of the plaintiff’s claim. If the plaintiff’s case is dismissed, stayed or discontinued, the counter-claim may nevertheless be proceeded with.”
COUNTER CLAIM -WHETHER A COUNTER CLAIM TRANSLATES TO A SEPARATE ACTION FOR WHICH THERE MUST BE TWO DISTINCT JUDGMENTS
“Therein lay the error of the trial Court as the respondents’ claim was not restricted to the same land as was claimed by the appellants. The sad aspect of the whole process at the trial Court was that the trial judge considered the evidence proffered thereto and failed to make a pronouncement thereon, thereby treating what he found in that respect as part of the main suit. The error is fundamental and not one to be brushed aside or treated lightly. This is because a counter claim is a different action from that on which the main claim is predicated which translates to two separate actions for which there must be two distinct judgments which can be in the same process or suit or another date and process. There is no running away from the distinction. See Akinola v Unilorin (2004) NWLR (Pt.885) 616; Obi v Biwater Shellevbear Nig. Ltd (1997) 1 NWLR (Pt.484) 722.”
COUNTER CLAIM – WHETHER A COUNTER CLAIM IS A DIFFERENT ACTION FROM THAT WHICH THE MAIN CLAIM IS PREDICATED
“The appellants seem to wish a persuasion that what is on ground is akin to a matter of a judge’s right to his particular style of judgment writing or that what he did in relation to the issues arising from the counter claim were within his discretion so to do. That is not the correct position of the law as it is a matter of substantive and procedural law that is now well settled in a long line of cases. Stated another way, a counter claim is a different action from that which the main claim predicated. Therefore there must be two separate judgments, one for the main claim and the other for the counter claim though they have both been brought together in the same suit. See Kaduna Textile v Umar (1994) 1 NWLR (Pt.319) 143; Emaphil v Odili (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt.67) 915.”
COUNTER CLAIM – WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEAL CAN SPECULATE ON WHAT THE JUDGMENT OF TRIAL JUDGE WOULD HAVE BEEN WHERE A COUNTER CLAIM WAS NOT CONSIDERED
“I agree with the Court below that the trial Court having failed to consider the counter-claim separately, the Court of Appeal was not to speculate on what the judgment and orders of the trial Judge would have been had when he considered the counter claim. See Masade Esene Substituted by A. Masada v. C. Isikhuemen (1978) 2 SC 87.”
COUNTER-CLAIM – NATURE OF COUNTER-CLAIM
“A counterclaim is an independent action where the parties in the main action are in reverse roles. The plaintiff becomes the defendant, while the defendant becomes the plaintiff. See Oyagbola v. Esso West Africa (1996) 1 ALL NLR P.170; Ogbonna v A.G. Imo State (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt. 220) P.647 . A counter-claim does not depend on the outcome of the main claim. Once the main claim is concluded in whatever form, be it dismissed or discontinuance, the hearing of the counter-claim must commence.”
COUNTER-CLAIM – DUTY ON A COUNTER-CLAIMANT TO PROVE HIS COUNTER-CLAIM
“I am ad idem with the lower Court that a Counter-claim is a separate, independent and distinct action, N.B.N. Ltd v. U.C. Holding Ltd (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt. 891) 436; Ogbonna v. AG, Imo State (1992) 1 NWLR (pt.220) 647: Oyagbola v. Esso West Africa Ltd (1966) 1 All NLR 170: Thus, the counter-claimant, like the plaintiff in the main action, has a duty to prove his Counter-claim if he hoped to obtain judgment, Jeric Nigeria Ltd v. Union Bank of Nigeria Plc (2001) 7 WRN 1, 18; Prime Merchant Bank v Man-Mountain Company (2000) 6 WRN 130, 134; Walter v Skyll Nig. Ltd (2000) 13 WRN 60, 98. In effect, the burden of proving a Counter Claim is on the counter claimant as he is the party who would fail is no evidence is adduced to establish it, N.B.N. Ltd v. U.C. Holding Ltd (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt. 891) 436, 454; Umeojiako v. Ezeanamuo (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt 126) 253, 267.”
COUNTER CLAIM – DUTY OF A TRIAL COURT WHEN CONFRONTED WITH BOTH THE MAIN AND COUNTER CLAIM IN A SUIT
“To my mind, a counter claim is always considered as an independent, separate and distinct claim which a trial Court must always consider. A trial Court confronted in a suit with both the main and counterclaims, must give separate judgment on each of the claims as each of such claim is independent of one another in this instant case, the trial Court failed to consider or to determine the defendants’ counterclaim.”
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Nil|
