CORAM
Obietonbara Owupele Daniel-Kalio Justice of the Court of Appeal
Muhammad Ibrahim Sirajo Justice of the Court of Appeal
Adebukunola Adeoti Ibironke Banjoko Justice of the Court of Appeal
PARTIES
MR. QUDUS ANRETI
APPELLANTS
MRS. KAFILAT IDRIS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
ACTION, APPEAL, COURT, JUDGMENT AND ORDER, LAND LAW, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, WORDS AND PHRASES
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant and Respondents are children of the late Alhaja Mulikat Amope Anreti who died intestate at Lagos Island leaving behind three other children aside the Appellant and Respondent. The Respondent is the eldest of the five surviving children and was born during her mother’s previous marriage. She did not share the same father with her other four siblings. Upon the death of their mother, the Appellant sold the partly developed property at No. 50, Old Otta Road, Abule Egba, Lagos, which the Respondent contends belongs to all the children of late Alhaja Mulikat Amope Anreti by inheritance. The Respondent, hence claimed against the Appellant and another (Person Unknown), a declaration that the landed properties of late Alhaja Mulikat Amope Anreti situate at Disu Esan Street, Orile Iganmu and No. 50, Old Otta Road, Pipeline junction, Ile Epo Bus Stop, Abule Egba, Lagos State belong to the Claimant, 1st Defendant and other surviving children of late Alhaja Mulikat Amope Anreti jointly; a declaration that the purported sale of the disputed property by the 1st Defendant to the 2nd Defendant without the knowledge, authority and consent of the Claimant is a nullity , an order setting aside the purported sale amongst other reliefs.
The Appellant in his defence admitted that the property situate at No. 30 Disu Esan Street, Orile Iganmu, owned by their late mother, is jointly inherited by him, the Claimant and other surviving children of their late mother. He however denied the claim of the Claimant/Respondent with respect to the partly developed property at No. 50, Old Otta Road, Abule Egba, Lagos State and asserted that the said property belonged to him, as same was purchased for him by his father, being the only male child of his mother. The Person Unknown did not show up before the lower Court and so did not file any process.
At the conclusion of trial before the lower Court, judgment was entered in favour of the Claimant/Respondent. Peeved by the decision of the lower court, the Appellant filed this appeal. The Respondent was neither in Court nor represented by counsel.
HELD
Appeal Allowed
ISSUES
Whether, on the proper evaluation of the evidence presented in the lower Court, the Respondent was entitled to judgment?
Whether, from the evidence adduced before the lower Court, the Claimant/Respondent has proved her claim to entitle her to the declarations and orders made by the lower Court.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
FORMULATION OF ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – ESSENCE OF FORMULATING ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION IN AN APPEAL
“The essence of formulating issues for determination in an appeal is to narrow and condense the issues in the grounds of appeal into a compact issue or issues which are critical and fundamental for the determination of the appeal. See G. Chitex Industries Ltd vs. Oceanic Bank International (Nig.) Ltd (2005) LPELR-1293 (SC); Akomolafe vs. Guardian Press Ltd & Ors (2010) LPELR-366 (SC). PER M. I. SIRAJO, J.C.A.
FORMULATION OF ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – WHETHER AN ISSUE MUST BE FORMULATED ON EACH GROUND OF APPEAL
“It is not necessary that an issue must be formulated on each ground of appeal. Nothing can be gained from formulating multiple issues if one or two comprehensive issue(s) can resolve the appeal. PER M. I. SIRAJO, J.C.A.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO