Chief Aina Jegede & Ors. V. David Bamidele & Ors. (2005)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

TIJJANI ABDULLAHI, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the decision of the Kwara State High Court of Justice, sitting at Ilorin in Suit No. KWS/OM/8/93, delivered by Oluyemisi Ajayi (J) on the 31st day of October, 2002, wherein the learned trial Judge granted in favour of the Respondents, who were Plaintiffs at the lower Court jointly and severally the sum of N50,000.00 as general damages for trespass and injunction, against the Defendants (Appellants herein). The cases were separately filed by the Plaintiffs, but were consolidated upon the application of the Defendants (Appellants herein).

Dissatisfied with the said Judgment, the Appellants appealed to this Court by filing an Amended Notice of Appeal consisting of 10 grounds after leave of this Court had been sought and obtained.

The facts of the case as can be gleaned from the record are that the Respondents, who were the Plaintiffs at the lower court, are indigenes of Osi Community in Ekiti Local Government Area of Kwara State, while the Appellants belong to Etan Community in the same Local Government.

The Plaintiffs’ complaint was that on or about the 5th day of March, 1993, the Defendants under the command and supervision of the first Defendant entered the Plaintiffs’ farmlands at “Goyin” and “Oye” in Osi and destroyed the crops on the land. At the time they entered the farms to destroy the crops, some of the Plaintiffs were working on the farms. The said Plaintiffs saw the Defendants, who knew them before the incident under consideration.

Those who were on their farms in the same area and who allegedly witnessed what happened, informed some of the Plaintiffs who were not on the farms on that day, but whose farms where also entered and destroyed by the Defendants about the incident.

The Plaintiffs (Respondents herein) reported the incident to the Olosi of Osi, who advised them to report the matter to the police which they did. 2nd and 3rd Defendants were arrested and charged to Court for trespass and destruction of the Plaintiffs’ (Respondents) Crops.

The Plaintiffs filed separate actions at the State High Court against the Defendants (Appellants herein). On 18/5/95, an application to have the cases consolidated was granted. The Defendants (Appellants herein) sought and obtained leave to also present their counter-claim in a representative capacity. The case went to full trial and at the end of same judgment was given in favour of the Plaintiffs (Respondents’ herein) by finding all the Defendants liable to the Plaintiffs in the sum of N50,000.00. They (Defendants) were also restrained from entering into the farmlands of the Plaintiffs to destroy their farmlands at Goyin and Oye respectively. The counter-claim of the Defendants was equally dismissed. (See pages 128 and 129 of the record).

The Defendants as stated earlier were not happy with the decision and appealed to this Court. Pursuance to the provisions of Court of Appeal Rules, briefs of argument were consequently settled. In accordance with the provisions of order 6 rules 2, 3 and 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules they exchanged briefs, which were settled as Appellants’, Respondents’ and Appellants’ reply brief of argument. Issues were framed in both briefs of argument. The issues identified as calling for determination in the Appellants’ brief are four and are as follows:

“1. Whether having regard to the evidence adduced by the Plaintiffs and their witnesses, the lower court was right in holding that the Plaintiff’s action succeeds.

2. Whether the learned trial judge properly applied the Supreme Court decision in BALOGUN VS. AKANJI (1988) 2 SCNJ 104 to the facts of this case.
3. Whether the award of general damages of N150,000.00 in favour of the Plaintiffs by the learned trial Judge was justified in the circumstances of this case.
4. Whether the lower Court was vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate on the Plaintiffs’ claims.”

On the other hand, three issues were formulated by the Respondents as calling for determination in this appeal as follows:-

“1. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the Plaintiffs proved their claims for trespass and damages against the Defendants (Appellants). Grounds 1, 3, 5, 8.

2 Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the defendants failed to prove their counter-claim and dismissing the said counter-claim. Grounds 2, 4, 6, 9, 10.

3. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the Plaintiffs’ case and whether the learned trial judge was right in holding that the court’s jurisdiction was not ousted in any way whatsoever. Ground 7”

The above issues are one and the same thing, even though differently worded in the briefs submitted to us by counsel for our consideration, I am of the firm view that, this appeal can be disposed of by giving consideration to the issues formulated by the Respondents’ Counsel.