FUNDUK ENGINEERING LTD. V JAMES MC ARTHUR
July 4, 2025ALHAJI SALISU BABUGA VS THE STATE
July 4, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1996) Legalpedia (SC) 11142
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Tue Jul 9, 1996
Suit Number: SC.148/1991
CORAM
SALIHU MODIBBO ALFA BELGORE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT(Presided)
ABUBAKAR BASHIR WALI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
EMANUEL OBIOMA OGWUEGBU, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
NTHONY IKECHUKWU IGUH, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT(Read the Leading Judgment)
PARTIES
1. JOSEPH ONWU2. OGBONNAYA OKOLI3. CALISTUS OKPALA4. THEDDEUS ONYEKISAHU5. OKOLI JIDEOFOR6. ANYARAGBU UZOCHUKWU7. ANYAOHA AGBASOROM8. NWOSU OKOLI9. IZUNWOH MADUKA10. ONWULEME OKPALA11. GABRIEL MADUKA12. NWANKWO ALEBO(For themselves and as representatives of the people of Ndikpa, Ugwulano in Umunze) APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The plaintiffs claimed that the land in dispute known as Uhuagba or Uhuowerre had belonged to them from time immemorial, having inherited the same from their great ancestor, Agba through successive ancestors and arbitration under customary law and estoppel by conduct.
HELD
This appeal accordingly fails and it is hereby dismissed. The judgment of the court below is hereby affirmed and there will be costs to the respondents against the appellants which I fix at N1,000.00.
ISSUES
“1. Whether the plaintiffs/respondents in their pleadings and evidence relied on Exhibit C to show that the defendants/appellants once admitted that the land in dispute belonged the Ndiabos?2. Did the plaintiffs/respondents successfully raise the plea of estoppel by conduct having regard to their pleadings and the evidence in support?3. Were the preconditions necessary for the operation of the plea of estoppel by standing by established by the plaintiffs/respondents? 4. Whether the decision of Chief Ugochukwu contained in Exhibit D was given in violation of the rules of natural justice; and if so whether it can support a plea of estoppel.5. Whether the sum of N1,500.00 awarded as nominal damages is not manifestly excessive.”
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ACQUIESCENCE – LACHES – STANDING-BY
” The law is settled that if a party having a right stands by and sees another dealing with the property in a manner inconsistent with that right, and makes no objection while the affair is in progress, he cannot afterwards complain. See Leeds (Duke) v. Amherst (Lord) 16 L.J. Ch.5.”
Per IGUH, JSC
EFFECT OF ARBITRATION
“The law is well settled that where disputes or matters in difference between two or more parties are by consent of the disputants submitted to a domestic forum, inclusive of arbitrators or a body of persons who may be invested with judicial authority to hear and determine such disputes and matters for investigation in accordance with customary law and general usages, and a decision is duly given, it is as conclusive and unimpeachable (unless and until set aside on any of the recognised grounds) as the decision of any constituted court of the land. Such a decision is consequently binding on the parties and the courts in appropriate cases will enforce it.”
Per IGUH, JSC
CASES CITED
Enang v. Adu (1981) 11-12 S.C. 25 at 42; Nwadike v. Ibekwe (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt.67) 718; Igwego v. Ezeugo (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt.249) 561 at 576; Chinwendu v. Mbamali (1980) 3-4 S.C. 31 at 75; Woluchem v. Gudi (1981) 5 S.C. 291 at 320 etc. See Joseph Larbi v. Opanin Kwasi (1950) 13 WACA 81; Anjoku v. Nnamani 14 (1953) WACA 357 at 359 etc. Lateju v. Iyanda (1959) SCNLR 634 (1959) 4 FSC 257 at 259; Alhaja Sabalemotu Kaiyaoja and others v. Egunla (1974) 12 S.C. 55.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
None.
