CORAM
SIR UDO UDOMA, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MOHAMMED BELLO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR
ANIAGOLU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
KAYODE ESO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
MOGO CHINWEDU APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The plaintiff (a member of Amadim family) as respondent instituted this action against the defendants (of Umuezede family) claiming declaration of title to a piece of land known as Egede land. The plaintiff made references to previous lawsuits between the parties without pleading estoppel per rem judicatem. Both the High court and the court of Appeal found for the plaintiff.
HELD
The court dismissed the appeal and held that the learned trial Judge rightly gave judgment for the plaintiffs for the ownership of the land in dispute and that the Court of Appeal rightly dismissed the appeal lodged by the Umuezedes against that judgment.
ISSUES
None.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
1. WHETHER ESTOPPEL MAY APPLY TO PART OF THE ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION IN A CASE WITHOUT AFFECTING THE WHOLE CASE-
It has been a long established practice in our courts in this country for a defendant to plead a judgment given against a plaintiff as estoppel against the plaintiff where the plaintiff relitigates the subject- matter against him but the practice is not often employed by a plaintiff against a defendant who raises issues already decided upon in a previous litigation. Nothing, however, prevents a plaintiff from raising, in the original or further pleadings, estoppel against a defendant who makes assertions in his pleadings contrary to what had been solemnly declared in a previous judgment against him. In those circumstances such a plaintiff is entitled to move the court to strike out that part of the defendants pleadings which seek to raise the issues again, and it is the duty of the court to strike out such pleadings and save the parties the expense, and the court the time, of hearing lengthy evidence on unnecessary and irrelevant matters. Per ANIAGOLU, JSC
2. ON WHETHER ESTOPPEL BY RECORD AND DEED MUST BE PLEADED –
Undoubtedly the old rule was that estoppel by record and deed must be pleaded where, as here, there was opportunity to do so; under the modern practice it is not, however, necessary to plead estoppel in any particular form so long as the matters constituting the estoppel are stated in such a manner (as has been done in the pleadings of the respondents in these proceedings) to show that the party pleading relies upon it as a defence or an answer. Per IDIGBE, JSC
3. WHETHER THE COURT CAN GRANT A DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND WHERE THE PLAINTIFF SUCCESSFULLY ESTABLISHES TITLE OVER A SMALLER PIECE OF LAND –
It is settled law that where in a claim for declaration of title the dispute is proved to be confined to a smaller area than originally set out in the claim, judgment should be limited to the area in dispute. The courts powers of adjudication are never invoked on matters not in dispute or controversy and to complain of the courts action in limiting the declaration to an area proved to be the area in dispute borders on frivolity. It is erroneous to argue that that area was not the same as the area claimed.
Even where a plaintiff succeeds in establishing a title to a smaller area than that claimed, it is the law that the court may grant him a declaration in respect of that smaller area. Per IDIGBE, JSC
CASES CITED
1. Sheridan v. Barnett (1879-80) 4 Ir. Law Rep., p. 223 at Pp. 229-2302. Keith v. R. Gancia & Co. Limited (1909) 1 Ch 774 at p. 789.3. Re Vandervells Trusts (No. 2) White & Ors. v. Vandervell Trustees Limited (1974) 3 All ER 205.4. Harnam Singh v. Jamal Pirbhai 1951 AC 6085. Scrimati Ribhabati Devi v. Kumar, 12 WACA 1706. Ramendra v. Narayan Roy 62 TLR 549.7. Abinabina v. Enyimadu (1953) AC 2078. Ometan v. Chief Dore Numa 11 NLR 189. Lever Brothers Ltd. v. Bell (1931) 1 KB P 557
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Evidence Act Volume II Laws of the Federation of Nigeria and Lagos 19582. The Constitution of the Federation No. 20 of 1963 as amended by the Constitution (Amendment) (No. 2) Decree, 1976;3. The Federal Court of Appeal Decree No. 43 of 19764. The 1961 Supreme Court Rules