G.E.N. Onyekwuluje V. G.B. Animashaun & Anor (1996)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

MOHAMMED, J.S.C.

This appeal is from the judgment of Court of Appeal Enugu. The dispute which gave rise to this appeal concerns an estate of late Badaru Animashaun family in Onitsha. The respondents, as plaintiffs claimed in the High Court that their family property was alienated by lease without their consent.

The lease was allegedly granted secretly to the appellant by late Alhaji Isiaka Badaru Animashaun who was then head of Animashaun family and co-administrator of the estate of Badaru Animashaun. It has been alleged that when he granted the lease to the appellant the co-administrator and other members of Animashaun family were not consulted. For the above reason the respondents, in this appeal, filed the following claim before the Onitsha High Court:

“(a) A declaration that the purported Deed of Lease made on 29th January, 1975 between I. B. Animashaun and R. B. Animashaun and the defendant touching and concerning a plot of land lying and situated at No. 23 New Market Road, Onitsha, registered as No. 29 at page 29 in volume 766 of the Deeds Registry Enugu is contrary to Law and is therefore of no legal effect and should be set aside.

(b) A declaration that any purported occupation of No. 23 New Market Road, Onitsha pursuant to the said Deed of Lease of 29th January 1975 aforesaid is unlawful.

(c) Possession of the said land at No. 23 New Market Road, Onitsha Annual Value is N40.00.”

At the end of the trial F. O. Nwokedi J., dismissed the action. The respondents, who were appellants before the Court of Appeal, appealed against the decision of the High Court. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and entered judgment in favour of the respondents in terms of their claim. Dissatisfied with that judgment Mr. G. E. N. Onyekwuluje, as appellant, came before this court on seven grounds of appeal. The following issues have been formulated, for the determination of this appeal by learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Egonu:

“(a) Was the Court of Appeal right in failing to rule on the objections to grounds, 1,2,3 and 5 of the grounds of appeal before it and in taking the said grounds of appeal into consideration in coming to its decision in the appeal

(b) Was the Court of Appeal right in introducing into the case issues which were never pleaded nor raised by the parties in the case and in relying thereon in coming to its decision in the appeal

(c) Did the Court of Appeal properly direct itself on the facts and the law in the case

(d) Was the Court of Appeal right in purporting to re-evaluate the evidence adduced in the case

(e) Did the plaintiffs-appellants-respondents prove their case”

Chief Olakunri, SAN, raised only two issues for the determination of this appeal, on behalf of the respondents and they read as follows:

“(1) Ought not the High Court to have given judgment for the Plaintiffs upon the ample evidence placed before it to support their claim and upon the failure of the defendant to shift the burden placed on him to establish that he had the consent and approval of the principal members of the Animashaun family to the lease he organized through only one member of the family