EDET OKON IKO V. THE STATE
June 20, 2025PROFESSOR V.O.S. OLUNLOYO V. ADEDAPO ADENIRAN
June 20, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2001) Legalpedia (SC) 29812
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Jul 13, 2001
Suit Number: SC. 28/1996
CORAM
ADOLPHUS GODWIN KARIBI-WHYTE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI
MOHAMMED MUNTAKA S. COOMASSIE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
EMMANUEL OLAYINKA AYOOLA, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
1. UMEANO ACHIAKPA2. STEPHEN UDE(For themselves and on behalf of Umuonewe family of Isikwe Achi) APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
By a writ of summons, the Plaintiffs, for themselves and on behalf of the Umuonewe family of Isikwe Achi in Anambra State instituted an action jointly and severally against the Defendants of Umunduka family of Obinagu, Isikwe, Achi at the High Court claiming, declaration of title to the pieces or parcels of land, general damages for trespass, and an injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, servants and/or privies from acting in any way contrary to the rights of ownership of the plaintiffs in the said land without the previous consent or approval of the plaintiffs. The trial judge dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claims in their entirety. Dissatisfied with this decision of the trial court, the Plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeal, in which in a unanimous decision, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by this decision of the Court of Appeal, the Plaintiffs further appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
The main appeal was without substance and was dismissed. The cross-appeal had merit and was allowed. The judgment of the trial court dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims as affirmed by the Court of Appeal was further confirmed.
ISSUES
1. Whether the Native Court judgment, Exhibit C, created an estoppel per rem judicatam against the defendants/respondents and was enough to award title of the land in dispute, Masa, to the plaintiffs/appellants.2. Whether the plaintiffs/appellants succeeded in establishing their title to the land in dispute.3. Whether this is an appropriate case in which the court below ought to have ordered a retrial.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATAM CANNOT BE MADE THE BASIS OF AN ACTION BY A PLAINTIFF
“A plaintiff in an action may plead and rely on a previous judgment in his favor not as estoppel per rem judicatam but simply as an estoppel in the sense that it constitutes a relevant fact to the issue in his present action and the judgment will be conclusive of the facts which it decided. Accordingly, although the doctrine of estoppel per rem judicatam cannot be made the basis of an action by a plaintiff, a defence can be based entirely on it.” Per A.I. IGUH, JSC.
WHAT A PARTY RELYING ON ACTS OF POSSESSION MUST PROVE
“A party relying on acts of possession and ownership as proof of title to land must show that such acts not only extend over a sufficient length of time but that they are numerous and positive to warrant the inference of exclusive ownership of such land.” Per A.I. IGUH, JSC.
THE PLEA OF ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATAM
“The principle of law is well settled that the plea of estoppel per rem judicatam is a shield rather than a sword. Accordingly the plea is not available to a plaintiff in his Statement of Claim as he would thereby be impugning the jurisdiction of the court to which he has brought his action, since its successful plea would, in effect, oust the jurisdiction of the court before which it is raised.” Per A.I. IGUH, JSC.
A JUDGMENT BY A COURT WITHOUT JURISDICTION IS NULL
“A judgment by a court acting without or in excess of jurisdiction is a nullity and cannot consequently found an estoppel.” Per A.I. IGUH, JSC.
THE APPELLATE COURT CANNOT DEAL WITH ISSUES NOT BEFORE IT.
“It is trite law that an appellate court can only hear and decide on issues raised on the grounds of appeal filed before it and an issue not covered by any ground of appeal is incompetent and will be struck out.” Per A.I. IGUH, JSC.
IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS
“It is a basic principle of law that parties are bound by their pleadings.” Per A.I. IGUH, JSC.
WHEN AN ORDER FOR RETRIAL MAY BE GIVEN
“An order for a new trial may be made where there has been an error in law or an irregularity in procedure of such a nature that on the one hand the trial was not rendered a nullity and on the other hand the court is unable to say that there has been no miscarriage of justice.” Per A.I. IGUH, JSC.
CASES CITED
Yoge v. Olubode (1974) 1 All NLR. (pt 2) 118 at 126-127Emmanuel Igwego and others v. Fidelis Ezeugo and Another (1992) 6 NWLR. (Part 249) 561 at 587Ukaegbu and others v. Ugoji and Another (supra), Esan v. Olowo (1974) 3 SC. 125Timitimi v. Amabebe (supra), Wakefied v. Cooke (1904) AC. 31. HL. etcEkpo v. Ita 11 NLR 68 at 69 Piaro v. Tenalo (1976) 12 SC. 31 at 41Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) 9-10 SC. 246 Anyanwu v. Mbara (1992) 5 NWLR (Part 242) 386 at 401Bakare v. Apena (1986) 4 NWLR (Part 33) 1,Abibu v. Binutu and others (1988) 1 NWLR (Part 68) 57Fadlallah v. Arewa Textile Ltd. (1997) 8 NWLR (Part 518) 546Adelaja v. Fanoiki and Another (1990) 2 NWLR (Part 131) 137 at 148 Attorney-General, Anambra State v. Onuselogu Enterprises Ltd. (1987) 4 NWLR (Part 66) 547 Management Enterprises v. Otusanya (1987) 2 NWLR (Part 55) 179.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
None
