CORAM

JOSEPH SHAGBOAR IHKYEGH

BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL

YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR

BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL

PARTIES

MR. RASAK DUROSIMI (Substituted for Madam Orebo Durosimi by Order of court dated 11/2/2016) APPELLANTS

MR. BAMIDELE ADENIYIMR. TESLIMI ADEOLA ALMAROOF  RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Defendants who were parties in another suit obtained judgement against trespasser on a piece of land part of which is the land on which the Appellant who was not a party to the suit built her house. The judgement was later executed on the property owned by the Appellant without notice. Aggrieved by that action, she filed an action at the Lagos State High Court claiming a declaration that she is the person entitled to the statutory Right of occupancy in respect of all the pieces of land with the building on it known as No.1 Moyo Agoro Street, Ifako and more particularly delineated on survey plan NO. LA T/1002/76 dated28/10/76 and particularly identified on Plan NO. AD/6/2003 dated 14/4/2003 drawn by M. A. ADEOTI licensed surveyor, a declaration that any purported execution carried out on the property of the claimant pursuant to any judgment in suit No.ID/306/75 is illegal, unconstitutional, null and void, Claimant having not been made a party to such suit, an order setting aside any certificate of execution dated 25/8/89 (as regards the claimant) issued pursuant to illegal execution carried out on the claimants property at No. 1, Moyo Street, Ifako Agege in purported execution of Judgment in Suit No. ID/306/75, a suit in which she was not a party amongst other reliefs. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial judge dismisses the Appellant’s claim in its entirety, hence this appeal before the apex court.

HELD

Appeal Allowed

ISSUES

?    Whether it was right for the learned Trial judge to have wholly elevated the assertions in the pleading in Suit No. ID/210/91 (Exhibit D10, D10A and D10B) as Evidence in this case (when the said assertion never went through the crucible of evidence and cross-examination in the original suit itself as the case itself was struck out) and adopted the said assertions in the aforesaid statement of claim as constituting an admission by the Appellant in making her findings that (the Appellant was a privy of Arowokoko family defendants in that case and that she was shopping for better title when she went to Obawole Family in this case on appeal), and if the answer is in the negative whether that decision is not perverse and whether it had not occasioned grave miscarriage of Justice. Grounds 1 and 4.?    Whether there was any admissible evidence by the Defendant in the lower Court upon which the learned Trial Judge could have reached the conclusion that the land in dispute in this case is the same land litigated in Suite No. ID/306/75 and whether or not Exhibit D12 was not wrongly admitted and ought to be expunged from the records of the court. Grounds 2 & 3?    Whether it is the duty of the learned Trial Judge to inquire into how Exhibit C3 was obtained in reaching her conclusion of discrediting same and whether the learned trial judge could use oral evidence to contradict the content of document before him.?    Whether it was proper for the learned trial judge to have isolated pieces of evidence in Exhibit C5 & D3 in making her finding against the Appellant that her vendors    were never given title over the land, in preference to the conclusion reached in the Judgment which was in favour of the Appellants vendor. Grounds  6 & 8?    Whether the learned Trial Judge was correct in reviewing the Judgments in Exhibits C5, C6, C7, C8 and C9 with the sole aim of discrediting any favourable findings in favour of the Appellants vendor, when the sole purpose for which they were tendered was to show cumulative acts of possession exercised by claimants vendor as an aspect of the acts of Ownership of their parcel of land part of which is subject matter of this suit. Ground 7.?    Whether from the state of pleadings of the parties in this case the evidence tendered before the court, issues had not been joined on whether or not there was need to obtain LEAVE of Court before execution could be levied on the property of the claimant now substituted Appellant having regard to the fact that she was not a party to the Judgment obtained in Exhibit D8. Ground 9 & 10.?    Whether or not the Judgment was not against the weight of evidence before the court. Ground 11

RATIONES DECIDENDI

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Lagos State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT