CORAM
PARTIES
OGUNBIYI
APPELLANTS
ADEWUNMI
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
LAND LAW-POSSESSION-TRESPASS-APPEAL.
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant sought a declaration from court that the defendants had trespassed on its land, he (i.e appellant) being in possession while the respondents had title.
HELD
The Court held that the Plaintiff/Appellant was a trespasser and he cannot maintain the present action against the Defendant/Respondent with better title and prior possession.
ISSUES
Whether from the facts and circumstances of this case, it can be maintained that the Plaintiff/Appellant established such possession as to enable him succeed on the issues of trespass and injunction?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ATTITUDE OF THE SUPREME COURT TO CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF LOWER COURTS.
‘The policy of this court, as well as of other appellate courts of all Common Law jurisdiction is not to disturb the concurrent findings of two lower courts unless it unmistakably appears that there was a serious error either of law or procedure which if not corrected would lead to a miscarriage of justice’- C. A. OPUTA, JSC
CASES CITED
1. Sockna Mormodu Allis & Ors. v. Ahmed Alhadi 13 WACA. 320 at p. 321
2. Lokoyi v. Ololo (1983) 8 SC. 61 on pp. 69-73
3. lbodo v. Enarofia (1980) 5-7 SC. 56/57
4. Bakare v. The State (1987) 1 NWLR. (pt. 52) 579
5. NnaJiforv. Ukonu (1986) 4 NWLR. (pt. 36) 505
6. Abotche Kponugbo & Ors. v. Adja Kodadja (1933) 2 WACA. 24
7. Johannes England v. J. Modupe Palmer (1955) 14 WACA. 659 at p. 660
8. Pius Amakor v. Benedict Obiefuna (1974) 3 S.C.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Not Available