OBA LAWAL IFABIYI V CHIEF SOLOMON ADENIYI & 2 ORS

CORAM

SALIHU M.A. BELGORE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

ALOYSIUS I. KATSINA-AL, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

MICHAEL E. OGUNDARE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

OBA LAWAL IFABIYI APPELLANTS

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellant had sued the respondents over the validity or otherwise of the appointment of the 1st respondent as the representative of the district in the Ifelodun-Irepodun Traditional Council. The trial court proclaimed the appellant as the district head and restrained the respondents from representing the district in the council

HELD

The decision of the trial court was set aside as the issue of the headship of the district was not the issue before the court.

ISSUES

“(i) Is it proper for a Court, the Court of Appeal to formulate issues. (Ground 2)(ii) Did the lower Court, the Court of Appeal, properly understand the parties, case before adjudicating (Ground 3), and(iii) Did the High Court award a different relief to the Plaintiff from the one he claimed as falsely (sic) by the Court of Appeal (Ground 4).”

RATIONES DECIDENDI

COURTS ARE BOUND BY ISSUES FORMULATED BY PARTIES

“The trial court could not formulate a case different from what parties fought before it and adjudicate upon it. Also as the Appellant did not claim to be affirmed the District Head of Ile-Ire district, he cannot be so declared and such declaration must be nullified…”KALGO JSC

CUSTOMARY LAW IS A MATTER OF FACT WHICH REQUIRES PROOF

“Customary Law or Native Law and Custom, as rightly observed by the court below, is a matter of evidence to be decided on the facts presented before the court in each particular case. Indeed, Customary Law is a question of fact which must be proved by evidence if judicial notice is not available through decided cases of the superior courts”…

CASES CITED

Adebanjo v. Brown (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt. 141) 661 at 675; Ekpenyong v. Nyong (1975) 2 SC 71 at 80-81; N.H.D.S v. Mumuni (1977) 7 SC 57 at 81-81, Udofe v. Aquisiua (1973) 1 SC. 119.”