May 25, 2025
Legalpedia Citation: (2010) Legalpedia (SC) 05114 In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Fri Jun 4, 2010 Suit Number: SC.272/2003 CORAM PARTIES 1. YUSUFU AJAO IBITOKUN2. ALHAJI KARIMU […]
CORAM
PARTIES
1. YUSUFU AJAO IBITOKUN2. ALHAJI KARIMU FOLORUNSO[for themselves and on behalf of jagun ibagbe family] PLAINTIFF(S) / RESPONDENT(S)
DEFENDANTS/ RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The plaintiff sought a declaration at the High Court that the disputed property was family land and the alienation of a portion to the defendant was null and void. The trial court dismissed the claims, Dissatisfied the plaintiff successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal but no consequential orders were made. Dissatisfied with the judgment the defendant has appealed.
HELD
Appeal is dismissed
ISSUES
1. Whether or not the Court of Appeal was right in failing to make consequential orders?2. Whether or not the Court of Appeal was right in interfering with the findings of the trial court on the identity of the children of Jagun Ibagbe?3. Whether or not the Court of Appeal was right in the consideration and treatment of issue two adopted by the lower court on page 196 in the judgment of the lower court?4. Whether or not the Court of Appeal was justified to disturb the trial court’s findings on partitioning of the farmlands ofJagun label?5. Whether or not the Court of Appeal was right to consider or rely on any evidence which did not form part of the record before the trial court?6. Whether or not the Court of Appeal was right in its conclusion that on the totality of the evidence tendered before the trial court, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
NON-CONCURRENCE IN JUDGEMENTS OF LOWER COURTS: DUTY OF THE SUPREME COURT.
Where disagreement or non-concurrence occurred in the judgment of the trial court and that of the Court of Appeal, it is the duty of this court to resolve the conflict in line with what appears to this court to tally with the principles of justice or substantial justice as may be required by the totality of the case in question. Per MUHAMMAD JSC
PARTITION OF LAND: MEANING
Partition on the other hand, is the division of real property held jointly or in common by two or more persons into individually owned interests. The effect of the letter is that it confers on each individual member of the family an absolute and exclusive right to deal with his portion of the partitioned land. Per MUHAMMAD JSC
FAILURE OF COURT TO MAKE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER.
A consequential order is not an independent order of the main claim/relief. Where a court of law omits or fails to make consequential order[s], that failure or omission, in my view, can only amount to an irregularity which is incapable of causing a miscarriage of justice. Per MUHAMMAD JSC
PARTITION OF LAND: HOW VALIDATED.
Partition must be brought about by the consensus of all the members and branches of the family, otherwise it is void. Per MUHAMMAD JSC
ALLOTMENT OF LAND: MEANING.
Allotment in land matter transactions refers to the selection of specific land awarded to an individual allottee from a common holding. Per MUHAMMAD JSC
EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE.
It is the trial court that has the primary responsibility of evaluation of evidence. Per MUHAMMAD JSC
EFFECT OF APPEAL ALLOWED WITHOUT CONDITIONS.
When an appeal is allowed by an appellate court without any condition[s] attached, it means, simplicita, that the judgment /decision/order of the lower court is effectively set aside. Per MUHAMMAD JSC
BURDEN OF PROOF.
It is he who would fail if no evidence is called who shoulders the burden of proving what he claims. Per MUHAMMAD JSC
CASES CITED
1. AMODU V. AMODU [1990] 5 MWLR [part 150] 356;2. FAMUROTI V. AGBEKE [1991] 5 MWLR [part 189] 1;3. KWASALBA [NIG.] LTD. V. OKONKWO [1992] 1 NWLR [part 218] 407.4. BALOGUN V. BALOGUN [1943] 9 WACA 78;5. MAJEKODUNMI V. TIJANI 11 NLR; 74:6. ONISIWO V. GBAMGBOYE [1941] 7 WACA 69;7. OLORUNFEMI V. ASHO [2000] 2 NWLR [part 643] 143;8. MAYA V. OSHUNTOKUN [2001] 11 NWRL [part 723] 62.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Evidence Act.