N.O. Ogunbiyi Vs Abdulkadir Ishola (1996)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

ONU, JSC.

The Kwara State High Court presided over by Fabiyi, J., on 11th July, 1986 dismissed the appellant’s claim against the respondent. The appellant, then plaintiff had in his writ of summons, later elaborated in paragraph 10 of his amended statement of claim, sought the following reliefs against the respondent, then defendant as follows.-

“(i) N1,600 special damages and N3,400 general damages for trespass.

(ii) An order of this Honorable court mandating the defendant to remove the building the defendant is setting up on the plaintiff’s said land at 53 Ibrahim Taiwo Road, Ilorin; and

(iii) A perpetual injunction prohibiting the defendant, his servants and/ or agents from committing further acts of trespass on the plaintiff’s aforesaid land.”

After pleadings were ordered, filed and exchanged, the case went to trial. Its dismissal in a well considered judgment by the learned trial Judge was followed by an appeal by the appellant, who was aggrieved to the Court of Appeal sitting in Kaduna (Coram: Aikawa, J.C.A., of blessed memory; Ogundere and Akpabio, JJ.C.A.) where he also lost.

The appellant has now further appealed to this Court against the concurrent findings of fact by the two courts below premised on two grounds of appeal.

Briefs of argument were eventually exchanged by the parties in accordance with the rules of court. The appellant in his brief submitted four issues as arising for determination, namely: –

Did grounds 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 canvassed at the Court of Appeal raise substantial issues of law or were they omnibus in nature.

Did the lumping of the 5 grounds of appeal under one fell swoop occasion substantial injustice to the appellant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Could the trial High Court validly ignore the evidence of the defendant’s witnesses which supported the plaintiff/appellant’s case.

Was it right of the Court of Appeal to have ignored the said supporting evidence and confirm the High Court decision.

The respondent on the other hand, submitted the following two issues for determination:

Whether the 2 grounds of appeal before this court are competent in law and practice.