Just Decided Cases

SILAS OKOYE & ORS VS CHIEF AGBOGBUA KPAJIE & ORS

Legalpedia Citation: (1972) Legalpedia (SC) 51211

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Fri Jun 16, 1972

Suit Number: SC. 570/1965

CORAM


COKER,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

FATAYI-WILLIAMS,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

SOWEMIMO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT


PARTIES


SILAS OKOYE & 8 OTHERS (for themselves and on behalf of the people of umusiome quarter of nkpor) APPELLANTS


RESPONDENTS


AREA(S) OF LAW



SUMMARY OF FACTS

The plaintiff institute an action for trespass against the defendant, their claim as to ownership is premised on long term possession, and exercise of proprietary rights in respect of the land in dispute which include living , farming , owning several houses , juju shrines and grant of portion of the land to some other tenants. The trial court gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff, this was challenged by the defendants / appellants on grounds that the court granted a relief not sought by the plaintiff and the judgment given was in error for not considering their long undisputed possession on the disputed portion


HELD


The court held that it was the duty of the plaintiff to prove they were in exclusive possession before the alleged trespass was committed this they failed to do and that the trial judge was in error to have granted the injunction order to erect fence and barbed wire as boundary which the plaintiff never prayed the court for.


ISSUES


The learned trial Judge erred in law in ordering that concrete pillar boundaries be placed between Umusiome village of Nkpor and the people of Ikenga Ogidi when this was not claimed by the people of Ogidi the plaintiffs, nor did the Umusiome defended the action in a representative capacity.

The learned trial Judge erred in law in making the order of injunction in terms of the claim or at all having regard to the defendants long and undisturbed possession and the Plaintiffs laches and acquiescence.


RATIONES DECIDENDI


BURDEN OF PROOF IN ALLEGED TRESPASS TO LAND


It is the duty of the Plaintiffs to prove conclusively that before the alleged trespass, they were in exclusive possession of the land. It must be proved, in support of the claim for an injunction that not only are the sets of trespass being continued but also that the defendants had threatened to commit further acts of trespass. PER SOWEMIMO JSC


GRANT OF RELIEF


It is improper for a court to grant a party relief(s) that was not sought before it.


CASES CITED



STATUTES REFERRED TO



CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

Esther ORIAH

Recent Posts

RENCO NIGERIA LIMITED V Q OIL & GAS SERVICES LIMITED & ANOR

Legalpedia Citation: (2025-08) Legalpedia 42685 (CA) In the Court of Appeal PORT HARCORT Mon Aug…

2 weeks ago

ENGINEERING ENTERPRISE OF NIGER CONTRACTOR CO. OF NIGERIA VS THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF KADUNA STATE

Legalpedia Citation: Legalpedia SC KIZW In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Thu Sep 11, 2025…

2 weeks ago

COMMISSONER OF POLICE, WESTERN REGION VS ALOYSIUS IGWE & 2 ORS

Legalpedia Citation: (1960-01) Legalpedia 19912 (SC) In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Holden at Lagos…

2 weeks ago

CLEMENT AKRAN VS INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

Legalpedia Citation: (1960-02) Legalpedia 45350 (SC) In the Supreme Court of Nigeria HOLDEN AT LAGOS…

2 weeks ago

J. A. IREM VS OBUBRA DISTRICT COUNCIL AND OTHERS

Legalpedia Citation: (1960-03) Legalpedia 03348 (SC) In the Supreme Court of Nigeria HOLDEN AT LAGOS…

2 weeks ago

JOHN KHALIL KHAWAM AND CO VS K CHELLARAM AND SONS (NIGERIA)

Legalpedia Citation: (1960-03) Legalpedia 49115 (SC) In the Supreme Court of Nigeria HOLDEN AT LAGOS…

2 weeks ago