ADEBOYE AMUSA VS. THE STATE
June 17, 2025GENERAL YAKUBU GOWON VS. MRS. EDITH I. IKE-OKONGWU
June 17, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2003) Legalpedia (SC) 21111
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Jan 31, 2003
Suit Number: S.C. 44/1997
CORAM
I. L. KUTIGI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
M. E. OGUNDARE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
U. MOHAMMED, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
U. A. KALGO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
A. O. EJIWUNMI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
TIAMIYU ADEWOLE APPELLANTS
JOSEPH POPOOLA DADA RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The plaintiff claimed damages and injunction against the defendant for trespass on a piece of land which was granted absolutely to the plaintiff’s great-grandfather by one Fijabi, which he in turns allowed the defendant’s father to farm and build on part of the land. The defendant however claimed that it was his grandfather who made the grant to the plaintiff’s grandfather.?
HELD
The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of facts by the two Courts below, which gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff, were not perverse being supported by the clear evidences on record. The Court therefore dismissed the appeal of the appellant/defendant.
ISSUES
(a) Whether the plaintiff who failed to prove his title to the land in dispute could sustain his claim for trespass against the defendant in the circumstances.(b) Whether on the pleadings and facts before the Court, the Defendant committed any act of trespass against the Plaintiff.(c) Whether an appellate court could go outside issues formulated before it to dismiss an appeal.(d) Whether justice of the case warranted the grant of an injunction against the Defendants.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CLAIM FOR INJUNCTION NOT DEPENDENT ON DECLARATION OF TITLE
The law is equally settled that a claim for an injunction is not necessarily to fail after a claim for a declaration of title fails provided the area of the land in respect of which an injunction is sought is clearly defined. Per I. L. KutigI, JSC
ATTITUDE OF APPELLATE COURT TO CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT BY LOWER COURTS
This Court ought not to disturb or lightly depart from concurrent findings of fact of the two lower Courts as it has no opportunity of seeing and listening to the witnesses testify unless in exceptional circumstances when it is shown that such concurrent findings were perverse or based on wrong perspective of the whole case, which if uncorrected will lead to a miscarriage of justice. Per I. L. KutigI, JSC
A CLAIM FOR TRESPASS NOT DEPENDANT ON CLAIM FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE
It is settled law that a claim for trespass as in this case, is not dependent on the claim for a declaration of title because the issues to be decided on the claim for trespass are whether the Plaintiff has established his actual possession of the land and the Defendant trespassed on it, as was done in this case. These are separate and independent issues from that in a claim for a declaration of title…. A person can certainly be in possession through a third party, such as servant, agent or tenant as in this case. Also possession of a predecessor in title is in law deemed to be continued by his successor. Per I. L. KutigI, JSC
CASES CITED
1. Ebba V. Ogodo (1984) 4 S.C. 84 2. Dibiamaka V. Osakwe (1989) 3 N.W.L.R (PT. 107) 101; 3. Aruna & Anor. V. The State (1990) 6 N.W.L.R (PT. 155) 125.4. Oluwi V. Eniola (1967) N.M.L.R. 3395. Alatishe V. Sanyaolu (1964) 1 All N.L.R. 398, 6. Mogaji V. Cadbury (1972) 2 S.C. 97)
STATUTES REFERRED TO
NONE
