YEKINI ONIGBEDEN & ANOR V ISHOLA BALOGUN & ANOR - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

YEKINI ONIGBEDEN & ANOR V ISHOLA BALOGUN & ANOR

SAMUEL WILLIAMS VS ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION
August 9, 2025
ADESHINA MOSES & ANOR VS SAIBU OGUNLABI
August 9, 2025
SAMUEL WILLIAMS VS ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION
August 9, 2025
ADESHINA MOSES & ANOR VS SAIBU OGUNLABI
August 9, 2025
Show all

YEKINI ONIGBEDEN & ANOR V ISHOLA BALOGUN & ANOR

Legalpedia Citation: (1975) Legalpedia (SC) 11438

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Mon Apr 21, 1975

Suit Number: SC. 34/1974

CORAM


COKER JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

FATAYI-WILLIAMS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

IRIKEFE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT


PARTIES


YEKINI ONIGBEDENWAHABI ONIKORO APPELLANTS


RESPONDENTS


AREA(S) OF LAW



SUMMARY OF FACTS

The plaintiffs had sued the appellants for damages for trespass to land and trial judge gave judgment in favour of the plaintiffs. When the defendants appealed, the plaintiffs filed a notice of intention to rely upon a preliminary objection to the hearing of the appeal on the ground that the appeal was not properly before the Supreme Court and that it should be dismissed because there is no right of appeal to the Supreme Court in the matter and no leave to appeal had been obtained.


HELD


The Supreme Court held that the appeal was incompetent and it was struck out.


ISSUES


Whether there was a competent appeal before the Supreme Court


RATIONES DECIDENDI


INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 49(1) OF THE CUSTOMARY COURTS LAW (CAP. 31, LAWS OF WESTERN NIGERIA, 1959)


“We are satisfied that in so far as Section 49(1) of the Customary Courts Law (Cap. 31, Laws of Western Nigeria, 1959) prescribes an unconditional right of appeal to this Court from decisions of the High Court of the State in its appellate jurisdiction, the provisions are incompetent and void. We are convinced that with respect to appeal to this Court from a State High Court on matters which had gone to the High Court on appeal from another court, the provisions of the Constitution are unambiguous and they relate to a matter under the purview of Item 44 in the Exclusive Legislative List of our Constitution and unless such intention is transparently manifest, we do not see how the same Constitution could provide for the validity of a State legislation which would have the inevitable effect of negativing directly or otherwise its own statutory provisions.” Per COKER, JSC


CASES CITED


Mabinuori & Ors. v. Samuel Onti Ogunloye (1970) 1 All NLR 17


STATUTES REFERRED TO


The Registration of Titles Act

Customary Courts Law

The 1963 Constitution of Nigeria


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

Comments are closed.