Abiodun Adelaja Vs Yesufu Alade (1994)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

KUTIGI, JSC.

By Motion on Notice the appellants/applicants pray for the following orders –

“(a)Leave to amend the Notice and Grounds of Appeal filed and dated 16/6/92 against the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 20/3/92 by redrafting parts of Grounds 2 &3 of the said Notice and Grounds of Appeal and adding a new ground 5 to the Grounds of Appeal of the said Notice and Grounds of Appeal in terms of Exhibit ‘A’ attached hereto.

(b)Leave to amend plaintiffs’ (now appellants in this Court) Amended Statement of Claim filed on 20/11/89 and contained in pages 15-18 of the Record of Appeal to the Supreme Court by deleting the former paragraphs 19(1) and 19(3) of the Amended Statement of Claim and replacing same with new paragraphs 19(1) and 19(3) contained in Exhibit ‘B’ attached hereto.

(c) Deeming as properly filed and served the Amended Notice and Grounds of Appeal (Exhibit A) on the payment of the appropriate fees.

AND for further order or orders as this Honorable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.”

The motion is supported by an affidavit of 22 paragraphs sworn to by one Christopher Abiodun Adelaja, the first Plaintiffs/Applicant. Paragraphs 2-21 reads as follows-

“2. That I have the authority and consent of the other Plaintiff/ Appellants/Applicants to be referred to as applicants, to swear to this affidavit on their behalf.

3 That our claims in the High Court against the defendants/respondents are as follows:-

(i) Declaration of Title to a Statutory Right of Occupancy under the provision of Decree No.6 of 1978 in respect of all that piece or parcel of land, lying being and situate at Tabontabon village, Off Ring Road, Ibadan as per the Plan No. FA/M/ 32A drawn by Licensed Surveyor A.O. Adebogun dated 16/ 11/79.

(ii)N200.00 general damages for a continuing trespass commenced since month of June 1977 by the defendants, their agents and/or servants on the said landed property in Ibadan.

(iii) Injunction restraining the defendants their agents, servants, privies and all those claiming through the defendants from committing further acts of trespass on or in any other way interfering with plaintiffs’ ownership and/or possession of the said landed property

4.That the 2nd applicant and I partially succeeded in the High Court, having been granted title to the land in dispute but our claims for trespass and injunction in respect of the land in dispute failed.

5. That the claims by the 3rd applicant in respect of the land in dispute was dismissed in its entirety.