Michael Olanrewaju & Anor Vs Isaac Ade Ogunleye (1997)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

ONU, J.S.C.

In the High Court of Oyo State, Ife Judicial Division, holden at Ile-Ife the plaintiff, herein respondent claimed against the defendants now appellants jointly and severally the following reliefs:-

“(a) The sum of Ten thousand Naira (N10,000) as General Damages for the wrongful destruction and destructive and or wrongful reaping of the plaintiff’s palm trees between February and March, 1983 on a portion of the plaintiff’ s farm-land at Iponrin Adegoroye Ogunleye farmland in lfe District let to the 1st defendant orally and later witnessed in writing by an Agreement dated the 28th day of December, 1964.

Injunction restraining the defendants, their agents and privies from further tampering with the said palm trees.”

Pleadings were ordered, filed and exchanged by the parties. The case went to trial and after the addresses of counsel, the learned trial Judge (Oguntoye, J.) in a well considered judgment dated the 23rd day of May, 1984, found in favour of the respondent. On appeal by the appellants, the Court of Appeal (Coram: Akanbi, J.C.A. as he then was, in which Omololu- Thomas and Gambari, JJ.C.A. concurred) dismissed the appeal on 12th July, 1989.

The appellants have further appealed to this court upon a Notice of Appeal dated the 17th day of August, 1989 containing one ground which I deem pertinent to set down hereunder because of what I intend to say about it vis-a-vis the additional grounds filed in the appeal later on in this judgment.

“Ground of Appeal:

(1) The Court of Appeal erred in law in dismissing the appeal when it was clear that the learned trial Judge based his judgment on inadmissible evidence and therefore came to a wrong conclusion.

Particulars

(a) The Document admitted as Exhibit “1” is a registrable instrument under the Land Instrument Registration Law Cap. 56 Laws of Oyo State, 1958.

(b) Not having been registered, Exhibit “1” is not admissible in law.

(c) It did not matter that the appellant did not object to its admissibility at the tria1.”

Parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument in accordance with the rules of court. Embedded in the appellants Brief are at pages 2 to 5 five additional grounds of which at paragraphs 3 and 3.1 the appellants have this to say:-

“3. Grounds of Appeal