BENEDICT OTANMA V. KINGDOM YOUDUBAGHA
June 6, 2025MISS FELICIA OSAGIEDE OJO VS DR. GHARORO
June 6, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2006) Legalpedia (SC) 91791
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Mar 10, 2006
Suit Number: SC. 244/2001
CORAM
SYLVESTER UMARU ONU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ALOYSIUS IYORGYER KATSINA-ALU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
ALPHONSUS NKUMA (For himself and on behalf of the people of Ogwuma Village, Oguta) APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
Nigerian Agip Oil Company deposited a sum of money in the office of the Division Officer, Oguta as compensation to the owners of a parcel of land which it uses for its oil operations. The Appellant and Respondent both lay claim to the sum of money in court and their separate suits was consolidated. Judgement was delivered in favour of the Respondent/Defendant.
HELD
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal holding that the nature of the dispute was only for compensation and a claim for declaration of title to such land is not a condition precedent. Also, the identity of the land was not in dispute.
ISSUES
Whether in the absence of a claim for declaration of title to or ownership of the land in contest, the Court of Appeal was right in upholding the award of the sum of N25, 180.32 to the respondent which sum is an ancillary, incidental and consequential claim to title or ownership of land. ?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION FOR LAND
“It is in my view eminently unjustifiable for this Court to lay it down as a principle that a person who merely wishes to claim compensation for land must first seek a declaration of title. It may well be that in order to be entitled to that compensation, the plaintiff may need to call evidence as would have been ordinarily necessary in a claim for declaration of title but that is not the same as saying that he must per force make a claim for declaration of title.” Per Oguntade JSC
DUTY OF COURT WHEN PLEADINGS HAVE BEEN SETTLED
“It is my considered view, my Lords, that in a case where pleadings have been settled (as in the instant case) the trial court, in consideration of such a case would first set out the issues as have been joined by the parties on the pleadings, then consider the evidence by both parties in support of such issues as joined and the consideration of the evidence shall be in line with the decision of this Court in” A. R. Mogaji & Ors. V. Madam Rabiatu Odofin & Anor. (1978) 4 SC.91 at 94. Per Eso JSC in Bello V. Eweka [1981] 1SC 101 at 118 PER- G.A. OGUNTADE, JSC
CASES CITED
A.R. Mogaji & Ors. V. Madam Rabiatu Odofin & Anor. (1978) 4 SC.91 at 94Bello V. Eweka [1981] 1SC 101 at 118
STATUTES REFERRED TO
