CHIEF ADEKOYA OKE OLUKOGA & ORS VS MRS OLUFEMI FATUNDE
July 4, 2025ALHAJI SALISU BABUGA VS THE STATE
July 4, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1996) Legalpedia (SC) 11182
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Tue Jul 9, 1996
Suit Number: S.C 263/1991
CORAM
A.O. EJIWUNMI – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
S.M.A BELGORE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
E.O. OGWUEGBU, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
S.U. ONU JUSTICE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
A.I. IGUH JUSTICE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
OMIMKE EBEVUHE & ORS APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
For the respondents they are that the land in dispute is part of the land founded by Ovie their ancestor which land subsequently devolved on them. Both Ovie, Itete and her descendants, it is said, exercised maximum act’s of ownership over the land in dispute.Subsequently, the appellants trespassed on the land ?
HELD
In the result, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The appellants shall pay costs of N1,000.00 only to the respondents
ISSUES
1. Whether the decision of the lower court was right in holding that the wrong findings by the trial Judge in coming to the conclusion that there was no redemption of the disputed land was substantial enough to lead o a reversal of the decision of the trial court.2. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in holding that the appellants did not appeal against the adverse findings concerning the issue of pledge of the land in dispute. 3. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in upholding the learned trial Judge’s application of the onus of proof as enunciated in Onobruchere v. Esegine (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 19) 799 at pages 806-807; (1986) 2 SC 385 at pages 398-401.4. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in upholding the decision of the learned trial Judge in accepting case No. IOC/55/61 Ukpakara v. Emonido & Anor as an act of possession in favour of the respondents in this case
RATIONES DECIDENDI
PARTIES ARE BOUND BY THEIR PLEADINGS
It is trite law that a party is bound by his pleadings- There is indeed no onus on the respondents to establish a pledge. So held this Court in the identical case of George Onobruchere & Anor v. Ivwromoebo Esegine & Anor (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt.19) 799, wherein the principle was established that since the onus is on the defendants, in this case the appellants, it is their duty to begin to adduce evidence, for it is they who would lose if no more evidence is adduced having regard to the state of the pleadings.
CASES CITED
Melifonwu v. Egbuji (1982) 9 SC 145 at 168; Taiwo v. Dosunmu (1965) 1 All NLR 399 and Adegboyega v. Igbinosun (1969) 1 All NLR 1, Ikeanyi & Anor v. Ogbonna Adighogu (1957) 2 ENLR 38, See also Nwobodo Ezeudu & Ors. v. Isaac Obiagwu (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt.21) 208 at 213;(1986) 3 SC 1 at 4 Mustapha Lawal v. Abdul Gbadamosi Ijale (1967) NMLR 155 at 157. See Ikenye Dike & 2 Ors. Obi Nzeka II & 3 Ors. (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt. 34)144 at 146; Chukwueke v. Nwankwo & Ors. (1995) 2 NWLR (Pt. 6) 195 at 196 and A.G. Anambra State v. Onuselogu Enterprises Ltd. (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 66) 547.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
None.
