OSHOBOJA VS AMIDA & ORS

CORAM

D MUSDAPHER, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

A M MUKHTAR, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

I F OGBUAGU, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

M S MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

J FABIYI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

TAIYE OSHOBOJA(For himself and as representative of Oshoboja Family of Ijegun

APPELLANTS 

1. ALHAJI SURAKATU AMIDA

2. JIMOH OPEBIYI

3. MUFUTAU OPEBIYI

(For themselves and as of Fagbile Family of Ijegun) representatives

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

JUDGMENT – FINDINGS OF FACTS

SUMMARY OF FACTS

Following the order of the Supreme Court remitting the case for trial de novo, the plaintiffs/respondents claimed that they were entitled to the statutory right of occupancy. The trial court granted the reliefs sought. The defendants appealed but it was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, hence this further or instant appeal.

HELD

Appeal dismissed

ISSUES

None

RATIONES DECIDENDI

WHEN THE SUPREME COURT WILL DEPART FROM ITS PREVIOUS DECISIONS

This court would only be persuaded to depart from its previous decision in the following circumstance:-

(a) If the previous decision is proved wrong.

(b) If the previous decision is given per incuriam.

(c) If the previous decision is proved to be perpetuating injustice. Per FABIYI, JSC

NO MAN SHOULD BE VEXED TWICE ON THE SAME MATTER

The well established principle of law which applies both in civil and criminal cases that no one/man shall/should be or ought to be vexed twice on the same ground or for one and the same cause of action or the same issues. It is expressed in also the latin maxim of “nemo debet bisvexari, si constat curiae quod sit pro una et eadem causa Per OGBUAGU, JSC

CASES CITED

1.  Chikwendu v.Mbamali & anor:.(1980) 3 & 4 S. C. II;

2.  Enang v. Adu (1981) 11/12 S.C. 25 @ 42; (1981) 11-12 SC (Reprint) 17 @ 27;

3.  Nwadike & 2 ors. v. Ibekwe & 2 ors. (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt.67) 718

STATUTES REFERRED TO

NONE

OTHER CITATIONS