S. A. AKINOLA VS WEMA BANK PLC

CORAM

JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH – JUSTICE, COURTOF APPEAL

YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR – JUSTICE, COURTOF APPEAL

JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR – JUSTICE, COURTOF APPEAL

PARTIES

1.S. A. AKINOLA

2.A.O. OGUNGBE(Suing for themselves and on behalf of 34 occupiers of the Flats at the National Bank Housing Estate, D Satellite Town Badagry Expressway, Lagos)

APPELLANTS 

WEMA BANK PLC(In substitution for National Bank of Nigeria) RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Claimants/Appellants were given the houses/ flats and quarters at the National Bank Housing Estate, Satellite Town, Badagry Expressway, Lagos by the Defendant/ Respondent to occupy while in the service of the Defendant/ Respondent. The Claimants/Appellants, after serving the Defendant/Respondent, wanted to own a house in consequence of which they instituted an action against the Defendant/Respondent at the Lagos State High Court seeking a declaration that the Claimants/Appellants were the prospective owners of the respective houses/ flats and quarters situated at the above address. The trial court dismissed the Claimants/Appellants’ suit. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the Claimants/Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUES

1. Whether from the state of the pleadings and evidence, the learned trial Judge could have correctly reached a decision that the Appellants?

2. Whether the learned trial Judge of the LagosState High Court was right in law in extricating the Exhibit 2 and basing the judgment on the Exhibit alone to the exclusion Exhibits 1, 12 &13?

3. Whether there was any evidence to support that the Respondent was a trustee and bound by the conditions stated in Exhibit 12 and the Satellite Town Land (Title, Vesting and Validation) Act 1991 which the learned trial Judge ignored in its judgment?

4. Is the doctrine of estoppel applicable to the facts of this case and if so, could the trial court have validly, dismissed the Appellants’ claim?

5. Whether from the state of the pleadings and evidence, the learned trial Judge could have correctly reached a decision that the Appellants?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

WHEN ESTOPPEL CAN USED TO FOUND A CAUSE OF ACTION- A PARTY WHO HAS PREVIOUS JUDGMENT IN A LAND CASE MAY USE IT TO FOUND AN ACTION AGAINST HIS OPPONENT IN TRESPASS AND INJUNCTION

‘‘Estoppel may, in appropriate cases, furnish a cause of action. If, for instance, a party has previous judgment in a land case he may use it to found an action in trespass and injunction against his opponent’’ PER IKYEGH, J.C.A.

WHEN EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE BY THE TRIAL CAN BE INTERFERRED WITH- AN APPELLATE COURT WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF A TRIAL COURT EXCEPT IF SUCH FINDINGS ARE PERVERSE.

‘‘There is nothing perverse in the evaluation of evidence by the trial
judge. An appellate court would not ordinarily interfere with the findings of a trial court except if it is perverse; see the case of Woluchem V Gudi
(1981) 5 S.C. 291’’ Yargata Byenchit Nimpar, JCA.

WHEN A COURT CAN BE ACCUSED OF RAISING ISSUE SUO MOTU – A COURT CAN ONLY BE ACCUSED OF RAISING ISSUES SUO MOTU IF THE ISSUE DID NOT EXIST IN PLEADINGS

‘‘A court can only be accused of raising an issue suo motu if the issue, matter of fact did not exist in the litigation, See Ikenta Best (Nig) Ltd V A. G. Rivers State (2008) MSCQR VOL.32 1074 at 1106’’ Yargata Byenchit Nimpar, JCA.

WHEN DOES ESTOPPEL BY CONDUCT ARISES-ESTOPPEL BY CONDUCT ARISES WHEN ONE PARTY HAS MADE A REPRESENTATION OR PROMISE BY HIS WORDS OR CONDUCT WHICH AFFECTS THE RIGHTS OF THE OTHER PARTY

‘‘The case of Ude V Osuji (1998) 9-10 SC. 188 where the Supreme Court again described estoppels by conduct in the following manner: “Estoppel by conduct is that where one party has by his words or conduct made to the other promise of assurance which was intended to affect the legal relations between them and to be acted upon accordingly, then once the other party had taken him at his word acted on it, then the other who gave the promise or assurance cannot afterwards be allowed to revert to the previous legal relations as if no such promise or assurance had been made by him.” PER NIMPAR, JCA.

WHEN ESTOPPEL CAN BE USED AS A SWORD – ESTOPPEL CAN BE USED AS A SWORD WHERE THERE IS ENCOURAGEMENT OR ACQUIESCENCE IS FOUND ON THE FACTS WHICH GIVE RISE TO A CAUSE OF ACTION

‘‘The general principle is that a party is not allowed to or proceed from contending the contrary or opposite of any specific point which have been once distinctly put in issue which has certainly and solemnly been determined against him. The exception to the general rule was restated by Akanbi J. C. A (as he then was) in the case of O.A.U. V Onabanjo (1991) 5 NWLR (Pt 193) 549 at 567 thus: “As to whether or not estoppels can be used to found a cause of action, I venture to say that very much depends on the nature of the claim and the facts and circumstances of the case. However, it is not entirely as often been said that it can never be used as a sword. If any authority is needed, I find one in the case of Pascoe V Turner (1979) 2 ALL E.R. 945 at 949 where the point was made that – “Where estoppel by encouragement or acquiescence is found on the facts, those facts give rise to a cause of action. They may be relied on as a sword not merely as a shield.” PER NIMPAR, JCA.

RAISING OF ISSUE SUO MOTU BY COURT- A COURT WHICH RAISES A SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE SUO MOTU MUST GIVE THE PARTIES AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD

‘‘It now settled that when a court raises an issue, a matter or fact suo motu, the parties must be called upon to address the court on the point before resolution, i. e. the parties should be heard on it. See Adegoke V Adibi & Anor (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 242) 410; 0be V Babalola (1991) 4 NWLR (Pt. 185) 267 Badmus V Abegunde (1999) 11 NWLR (Pt. 627) 493 and Cookey V Fombo (2005) 15 NWLR (Pt. 947) 182 where the court held as follows:
“It is the law that a court should not take up a point suo motu and decide the matter before it on that point without hearing the parties.”
The rule is not without exceptions and some of which are where it is not substantial and it does not occasion a miscarriage of justice and where the issue, matter or fact exists in the litigation.’’ PER NIMPAR, JCA.

ESTOPPEL- ESTOPPEL GENERALLY IS KNOWN TO BE A SHIELD AND NOT A SWORD.

‘‘Estoppel generally is known to be a shield and not a sword but there is a qualification to the general rule. Estoppel generally is an admission of something which the law views as equivalent to an admission’’ Yargata Byenchit Nimpar, JCA.

ADMISSION- ADMISSION IS ANY STATEMENT MADE BY A PARTY TO A CASE ACKNOWLEDGING FACTS AGAINST HIM

‘‘And admission is defined by Blacks Law Dictionary 9th Edition as follows:
“Any statement or assertion made by a party to a case and offered against that party; on acknowledgment that facts are true.” Yargata Byenchit Nimpar, JCA.

ESTOPPEL- ESTOPPELS BY ITS VERY NATURE CONSIDERED AS CONCLUSIVE THAT THE PARTY WHOM IT AFFECTS IS NOT ALLOWED TO PLEAD AGAINST IT, OR ADDUCE EVIDENCE TO CONTRADICT IT.

‘‘Thus estoppels by its very nature considered as conclusive that the party whom it affects is not allowed to plead against it, or adduce evidence to contradict it, it prohibits a party from proving anything which contradicts his previous acts or declarations to the prejudice of a party, who relying upon them, has altered his position. There must be some previous acts, omission or declaration intentionally made by a person which caused or permitted the other person to believe to be true and upon which the later acted to his detriment, See the case of Adone V Ikebudu (2001) NSQLR W18 174 where the Supreme defined estoppel as above’’ Yargata Byenchit Nimpar, JCA.

CAUSE OF ACTION- MEANING OF CAUSE OF ACTION

‘‘Cause of action was defined in the case of Ikine V Edjerode (2001) NSQLR Vol. 18 341 thus:”The term “cause of action” means all those things necessary to give a right of action whether they are to be by the Plaintiff or a third party.” Cause of action has been held from the earliest time to mean every fact which is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed, every fact which the defendant would have a right to traverse.” PER NIMPAR, JCA.

DETERMINATION OF RELIEF VIS-À-VIS CAUSE OF ACTION- IT IS A CASUSE OF ACTION THAT GIVES RISE TO RELIEFS AND A PARTY CANNOT THEREFORE HAVE A RELIEF WITHOUT CAUSE OF ACTION.

‘‘It is a cause of action that gives rise to reliefs. So therefore, if a claim is proved means there was a cause of action that the court considered valid to be protected. There is no how a party can have a relief without a cause of action. Meanwhile a party can have a cause of action but fail to prove same for lack of evidence.’’ PER NIMPAR, JCA.

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Evidence Act, 1990

2. Property and Conveyancing Law

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT