Alhaji Raimi Edun V. Odan Community, Ado Family And Okokomaiko Community (1980)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

N. ANIAGOLU, J.S.C.

On 12th June, 1980, this Court, upon consent of the parties, delivered a consent judgment in the above case which came on appeal to the Court from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal. The details of the consent judgment (hereinafter simply referred to as the Consent Judgment) were as contained in the judgment of this Court as read by my Lord, the Presiding Justice, Sowemimo, J.S.C. as follows:

JUDGMENT

This case was instituted in 1961 and the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal came before us in 1980 that is 19 years after the institution of the case in the court of first instance i.e. the High Court Ikeja. At the court of first instance, the 2nd to 5th Defendants i.e. the Odan Parapo family (including Adu family), who are the 1st Respondents before us; the 6th to 8th Defendants, the Okokomaiko community, who are the 2nd Respondents before us properly made an application at the Ikeja High Court to be joined to the suit.

The Court of first instance granted the application but failed in its order to comply with the Western Region High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 1958, Order 7 Rules 11 and 12 which made it mandatory that the Order to be made by the court should be that the writ of summons be amended as well as the pleadings so as to include the claims which the two sets of Respondents who were later joined, but the court of first instance only asked that the two sets of defendants should be served with the original writ of summons and statement of claim filed by the plaintiffs, within 14 days and that the Defendants joined should file defence within specified number of days.

See also  Andrew Bassey Vs Ekpo Archibong Young (1963) LLJR-SC

The Plaintiff therefore served the writ of summons and statement of claim, which is against the 1st Defendant alone (not before us) and the result was that at the close of pleadings there was no issue joined between the Plaintiff and the 2nd to 8th Defendants and the defence purported to be filed by the 1st to 5th and 6th to 8th Defendants who were joined were not defences at all but claims.

The result was that on the 20th of November 1972 when the High Court of Ikeja made an order to the effect that the settlement of the case and the terms of settlement filed in the Ikeja High Court be treated as a consent judgment between the Plaintiff, the Oniba of Iba etc, and the 1st Defendant, Olojo of Ojo etc., that was the only judgment that could be given, taking into consideration that the court had erroneously excluded the 2nd to 8th Defendants from filing proper statements of defence when the writ of summons and statement of claim of the Plaintiff were never amended. Therefore the ruling of the High Court Ikeja dated the 28th of July 1974 was made without jurisdiction and so also the purported appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal, judgment of which was given on the 20th of July 1978 cannot also stand. In the circumstances of this case therefore, the parties have agreed to settle the matter and agreed to this Order.

ORDER OF COURT

It is hereby ordered that the consent judgment given on 20th of November 1972 between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant should stand subject however that the judgment does not affect the claims of the 2nd to 5th Defendants i.e. the Odan Parapo family (Adu family included) and the Okokomaiko community, the 6th to 8th Defendants. The plans of the land which they are claiming are delineated in plan Nos. AB. 1381 of 13/8/62 (Odan or Ado Family) Parapo and CW 649/62 of 20/11/62 Okokomaiko community. The ruling and costs awarded on the 20th of July 1974 by the High Court Ikeja are hereby set aside and judgment and costs ordered by the Federal Court of Appeal on 20th July 1978 are hereby set aside and all the costs be refunded to the Plaintiff if they had been paid. We make no order as to costs and parties before us should bear their own expenses. The appeal before us is therefore allowed subject to the above qualifications. The parties are not to use this agreed settlement for purposes of claiming compensation to be paid by the Lagos State Government which had acquired the land in dispute.

See also  Ogunleye Tobi V The State (2019) LLJR-SC

(Sgd) (G.S. SOWEMIMO)

JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT.

The PARTIES before us upon whose consent the said judgment was given were the Chiefs and people of Iba; the Chiefs and people of Ojo; the Odan Parapo family which included the Ado family whose members were represented by different counsel, and the Okokomaiko community. The suit, as originally taken out in the High Court, was between the Chiefs and people of Iba represented by Gbadamosi Amodu Sonibare II and the Chiefs and people of Ojo represented by Bello Ayilara. The family of Odan Parapo (including Ado Family) and the Okokomaiko community later applied to be joined, and were joined, in the High Court.

After the Consent Judgment had been delivered the application the subject-matter of this Ruling was brought by Chief Kehinde Sofola, S.A.N., of counsel, for Chief Yakubu Dawodu, the Olojo of Ojo described in the application as representing himself, the chiefs and people of Ojo, in Badagry Division – apparently the same people who were the original Defendants in the case in the High Court and who were represented by Mukandat Araga Akinleye – praying that this Court should set aside the Consent Judgment; and that the Applicants be heard in oral argument in the appeal; or in the alternative that this Court should order the Appellants to serve their written brief on the Applicants and grant the Applicants two weeks, extension of time within which to file and serve their reply brief.

In support of the application Chief Yakubu Dawodu swore to an affidavit challenging the representation in the suit by Mukandat Araga Akinleye and the settlement of the case made between him and the Plaintiffs and filed in court on 26th October 1972. Paragraphs 4 to 37 of the said Affidavit contain the facts on which the Applicants rely for their application and are hereunder set out:


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *