SAMUEL FADIORA & ANOR V. FESTUS GBADEBO & ANOR

CORAM

OGUNDARE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR

ANIAGOLU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

1. SAMUEL FADIORA

2. ALADE IN Re: Samuel

APPELLANTS

1. FESTUS GBADEBO

2. JOHNSON ADEBOWALE (On behalf of themselves and the Wanikin Family)

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

PROPERTY LAW- PROCEDURAL LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The respondents as plaintiffs in the trial court claimed from the appellant/defendant for a declaration of title to a piece of farmland, £150 being damages for the crops (on) and use of the said farmland; and an injunction restricting the Defendants and their agents from using the said land.

HELD

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Western State Court of Appeal that the decision of trial court be set aside and the case be remitted to the lower court (High Court of Oyo State) for re-trial de novo (i.e third trial) before a judge other than the two judges who presided at the first and second trials.

ISSUES

What exactly is the implication and effect of an unconditional or unqualified order for trial de novo by the Court of Appeal of a case on appeal before that court?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

ESSENCE OF TRIAL DE NOVO

“We think that in trials de novo the case must be proved anew or rather re-proved de novo, and therefore, the evidence and verdict given as well as the judges findings, at the first trial are completely inadmissible on the basis that prima facie they have been discarded or got rid of. The court of second trial, therefore, is entitled to and, indeed, must look at the pleadings before it in order to ascertain and decide the issues joined by the parties before it on their pleadings. This is the reason why it is a fundamental principle of the doctrine of res judicata that “no finding of the court or of a jury which has proved abortive, a new trial having been directed, will give rise to a valid plea of estoppel. Per C.IDIGBE, JSC