CORAM
S. KAWU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
S.M.A. BELGORE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
MIKE OMHENKE OBOMHENSE APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
Appellant/Plaintiff brought an action against the Respondent/Defendant for a declaration of title to land, damages for trespass, possession and perpetual injunction. Case was dismissed by the trial court. He filed a notice of appeal at the High Court 31st May 1982, records proceedings were ready in April 1987, and he collected his copy on 21st October 1987.
HELD
The court held that the Court below having decided the application to dismiss or strike out the appeal on a ground not relied upon by the applicant, and without supporting evidence was therefore wrong to have dismissed the appeal on such ground. The appeal therefore succeeds on this ground. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
ISSUES
1. Whether on the facts of this case, the Court of Appeal was correct in its construction of Order 3 v. 25 as applicable?2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in its computation of time to file brief of argument in accordance with Order 6 r. 2?3. Whether in the facts of this case appellant was given fair hearing?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
WHEN A CLAIM IS BASED ON THE WRONG LAW
The principle is now well established that where a relief or remedy claimed under a wrong law is supported by facts establishing the remedy, the claim will not be denied merely because of the wrong law relied upon. Per Karibi-Whyte, JSC.
WHERE WORDS OF A STATUTE ARE CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS
It is an important principle for the construction of the provisions of a statute, that where the words are clear and unambiguous, they must be given their ordinary meaning. Per Karibi-Whyte, JSC
CASES CITED
1. Falobi v. Falobi (1976) NMLR. 1692. Unosi v. Ochonma (1965) NMLR 3213. Queen v. Onuegbe (1957) 2 FSC. 10. (1957) SCNLR 1304. Awolowo v. Shagari & ors. (1979) 6-9 SC. 515. Okumagba v. Elbe (1965) 1 All NLR. 626. Mobil v. Federal Board of lnland Revenue (1977) 3 SC. 53.7. Nabham v. Nabham (1967) 1 All NLR. 74.8. Customs v. Barau (1982)10 S.C. 48;9. Osho v. Phillips (1972) 4 SC. 259
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. The Court of Appeal Rules, 1981