Alhaja Silifatu Omotayo V. Co-operative Supply Association (2010)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

F. OGBUAGU, J.S.C

This is an appeal against the Judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division (hereinafter called “the court below”) delivered on 10th December, 2001 dismissing the appeal of the Appellant from the Judgment of the High Court of Lagos State sitting in Ikeja – per Desalu, J delivered on 22nd May, 1981 which found in favour of the Respondent.

Dissatisfied with the Said Judgment, the Appellant, has further appealed to this Court firstly on two (2) grounds of appeal which were further Amended to be five (5) grounds of appeal – (See the Amended Notice of Appeal filed on 5th April, 2006). She has formulated three (3) issues for determination namely.

1. Whether having regard to the pleadings and evidence led, Plaintiff prove title (sic) to the land in dispute to warrant its claim for trespass to be granted
2. Whether a claim for trespass would lie against the Defendant, who has been found to be a licencee of the Plaintiff and in possession of the land and whether in any event a case of licencee was established against the Defendant
3. Whether Plaintiff can succeed in its action despite failure to ask for declaration of title” –

I note that it is stated that Issue 1 is covered by grounds 3 and 4 in the Amended Notice of Appeal while Issues 2 and 3, are covered by grounds 1, 2 and 5 of the grounds of appeal.

On its part, the Respondent has formulated four (4) Issues for determination which read as follows:

“3.01 ISSUES 1;

Whether having regard to the pleadings and the evidence led oral and documentary the court below was right in affirming the Judgment of the trial court on the issues of title, trespass, injunction and licence in respect of the land in dispute

3.02 ISSUES 2:

Who has a better title, the Plaintiff or the Defendant

3.03 ISSUES 3:

How does the attitude of the Supreme Court to the issues of concurrent Judgment of 2 Courts after this case (sic)

3.04 ISSUE 4:

Whether an Order of retrial is appropriate in this case”.

I note that there is no (question mark) in respect of Issues 3.02. and 3.03. I note also that Issue 1 is stated to be based on grounds 1, 2 and 3, while Issue 2 is based on grounds 4 and 5 of the grounds of appeal. I note also that there is what is headed as. “SUPPLEMENTARY AMENDED RESPONDENT’S BRIEF OF ARGUMENT” filed on 24th June, 2009. Although this is unusual, but a perusal of it by me, shows that it is perhaps, a serious complaint against the Appellant’s Solicitor, – Lateef O. Fagbemi & Co evidenced by the letter dated 24th March, 2009 attached thereto and addressed to the leading learned counsel for the Appellant.