UMUKORO USIKARO & ORS VS ITSEKIRI COMMUNAL LAND TRUSTEES & ORS - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

UMUKORO USIKARO & ORS VS ITSEKIRI COMMUNAL LAND TRUSTEES & ORS

ALHAJI AHMED AYUB-KHAN VS THE STATE
July 14, 2025
TAJUDEEN ADEYEMI VS THE STATE
July 14, 2025
ALHAJI AHMED AYUB-KHAN VS THE STATE
July 14, 2025
TAJUDEEN ADEYEMI VS THE STATE
July 14, 2025
Show all

UMUKORO USIKARO & ORS VS ITSEKIRI COMMUNAL LAND TRUSTEES & ORS

Legalpedia Citation: (1991-02) Legalpedia 48059 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Holden at Lagos

Fri Feb 15, 1991

Suit Number: SC 84/1988

CORAM


M.L. UWAIS, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

S. KAWU, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

P. NNAEMEKA-AGU, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

A.B. WALI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

O. OLATAWURA, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT


PARTIES


UMUKORO USIKARO AND ORS

APPELLANTS 


ITSEKIRI COMMUNAL LAND TRUSTEES AND ORS

RESPONDENTS 


AREA(S) OF LAW


PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – DISMISSAL ON GROUND OF DELAY- EXERCISE OF DISCRETION

 

 


SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellants’ suit for a declaration of title to a piece of land was dismissed before hearing by the trial court instead of striking it out on the ground of inordinate delay in prosecuting their case.

 

 


HELD


The court held that the facts on the record did not justify the conclusion of the learned trial Judge that the appellants were guilty of inordinate delay in prosecuting their case.

 

 


ISSUES


On the materials before the learned trial Judge was there any prolonged and inexcusable delay on the part of the appellants which was likely to do grave injustice to one side or the other?

 

 


RATIONES DECIDENDI


JUDICIAL EXERCISE OF DISCRETION


‘It is best to carefully consider all the circumstances of each case before concluding that there was inordinate delay on the part of a party which will justify the dismissal of his case. It is a discretion which must be exercised judicially.’ Per Kawu, JSC.

 

 


CASES CITED


Rev. Moses A. Abiegbe & Ors. v. Edheremu Ugbodume & Ors. (1973) 1 S.C.133 at p.139

 

 


STATUTES REFERRED TO


None.

 

 


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

Comments are closed.