J. S. TALABI VS MADAM ABIOLA ADESEYE
August 19, 2025ONUORA ASEAGBA & ANOR VS PATRICK ANIMONYE OFODILE & ANOR
August 19, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1972) Legalpedia (SC) 12164
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
HOLDEN AT LAGOS
Thu Aug 17, 1972
Suit Number: SC. 214/71
CORAM
MAIIMUDE MOHAMMED, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
UDOMA
SOWEMIMO
PARTIES
T. B. OGUNMADE APPELLANTS
CHIEF E.A.A. FADAYIRO RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The plaintiff is a judgment creditor against the defendant his judgement debtor. In a bid to enforce the judgment of the court against the defendant, the plantiff’s solicitor took upon himself, the role of a sheriff and sold the immovable property of the judgment creditor to the plaintiff by private treaty in execution of the judgment of the court against the defendant/ judgment debtor. The Appellant is appealing against the decision of the lower court which denies him title to the property attached property which he purchased for value.
HELD
The court held that the appellant/plaintiff was entitled to possession of the property via a certificate of title as a purchaser of an immovable property because, the sale to him was not in any way challenged before the court that any condition precedent was not complied with and he is also entitled to payment of rent and mense profit against the defendant which accrued while the defendant was unlawfully in possession of the property.
ISSUES
“1. There was no evidence that the provisions of Sections 27 to 36 of the Sheriffs and Civil Processes Law, Order 6 Rules 1 (a) and 3 of the Judgment (Enforcement) Rules were not complied with. The Court of Appeal erred by basing its judgment on the assumption that there was non-compliance with the aforesaid Law and Orders. 2. In the absence of:- (a) a Counter-claim from the respondent seeking any relief; and (b) evidence which brought the sale within the provision of Section 30 Sheriffs and Civil Processes Law; the Court of Appeal erred by confirming the finding of the High Court that the sale of the property was “void and of no effect.”
RATIONES DECIDENDI
WHEN THE WORD OF A STATUTE IS CLEAR
‘where the words of a statute is clear, the court must be careful so as not to derogate from the clear meaning of the words contained in the statute or import extraneous matter into the plain language of the statutes.
CASES CITED
Ex parte Welchman in re Hare (1879) 11 ChD. 48 (especially per Brett, LJ., at p. 56).
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Sheriffs & Civil Process (Amendment) Law 1964|
