CORAM

---

M.E. OGUNDARE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

U. MOHAMMED, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

KARIBI-WHYTE

 OBASEKI

UWAIS

OBASEKI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

UWAIS, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

KARIBI-WHYTE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

WALI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

PHILIP, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

OBED OKPALA

APPELLANTS 

---

RICHAD IBEME

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

APPEAL- LAND LAW – NON- SUIT – DISMISSAL

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The court of appeal dismissed the appellants’ claim to title to the land in dispute despite the finding that they were co- owners of the land and the respondents were strangers to the land. The appellants’ case had been non- suited by the trial court.

 

---

HELD

---

The court allowed the appeal and substituted an order of non- suit for the order of dismissal given by the court of appeal.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether, in view of the findings of fact made by the learned trial Judge, the Court of Appeal was right to have substituted an order of dismissal of the appellants’ case for the order of non-suit made by the learned trial Judge.

2. Whether, the learned Justices of Court of Appeal were wrong to have failed to enter judgment for the appellant on the issue of trespass.

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

DUTY OF COURT WHERE TITLE TO LAND IS IN ISSUE BETWEEN CONTENDING PARTIES VIS A VIS THOSE WHOSE TITLE IS NOT IN ISSUE BEFORE IT.

---

Where an issue of title to land arises in litigation the Court is concerned only with the relative strengths of the titles proved by adverse parties in the litigation and not the titles of those not before the court- Nnaemeka-Agu J.S.C.

 

---

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND NON- SUIT

---

An order of dismissal after fully hearing the parties concludes the matter against the plaintiff forever, subject to appeal. It concludes the rights of the parties for all purposes See Bozson v. Altrincham U.D.C. (1903) 1 KB. 547; Shubrook v. Titnell, 9 QBD. 621, C.A.  A non-suit, on the other hand was at common law originally a renouncing of the suit by the plaintiff or defendant. It decided nothing as regards the matter in dispute, but merely got rid of the pending action, leaving the plaintiff at liberty to begin de novo, either in the same or a subsequent suit, subject only to his payment of costs to be taxed against him – on the non-suit – Nnaemeka-Agu J.S.C

 

---

CASES CITED

---

Madam I. Arase v. Peter U. Arase (1981) 5 SC. 33, at p.35

Anukanti v. Ekwonyeaso (1980) 1 LRN.346, p. 351.

Karimu v. Fajuba (1968) NMLR. 151, p.152-153

Ramonu v. Akinwunmi SC. 106/1965 of the 23rd of June, 1966.

Sogunle v. Akerele & Ors. (1967) NMLR. 58, at p. 60;

Animashaun v. Osuma & Ors. (1972) 1 All NLR. (Part 1) 363, at p. 375

Bozson v. Altrincham U.D.C. (1903) 1 KB. 547;

Shubrook v. Titnell, 9 QBD. 621,

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Not Available

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT