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