Daniel Beecroft V. Mr. F. B. Abiola Cudjoe & Ors. (2006)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

NZEAKO, J.C.A.

On the 22nd of May, 2000, Naron J, sitting at the High Court of Justice Jos Division, Plateau State of Nigeria delivered a judgment in Suit PLD/J/68/96. In the suit, the respondents herein were the plaintiffs. They claimed against the defendants who are the appellants in this appeal, the following reliefs set out in paragraph 13 of their amended statement of claim:-

“WHEREFORE plaintiffs claim process (sic) that the court distribute and or partition the properties No. 19, 20 and 21c Church Street Jos and No. 69/16 Massallachin Jumma’a Street, Jos, No. 70/7 Sarkin Arab Street, Jos, and other material by the honourable court (sic). Also for an account rents (sic) over the property received (sic).”

Parties to the suit had filed and exchanged pleadings. At the trial, there was no evidence led. There were however three exhibits tendered from the Bar by Mr. Falade learned counsel for the plaintiffs and admitted in evidence as exhibits 1, 2 and 3 without objection by Yusuf Alli Esq, learned counsel for the defendant. Mr. Falade then urged the court to enter judgment for the plaintiffs as per exhibit 3. On his part, Mr. Yusuf Ali said he had seen exhibits 1 – 3 and added, “there is nothing for me to urge in respect of the defendant since the matter is res judicata.”

He entered judgment in terms of exhibit 3. He declared:

“Judgment is therefore entered in favour of the plaintiffs as per the contents of exhibit 3.”

The defendant has appealed to this court against the judgment on 4 grounds by notice of appeal filed on 18/8/2000.

Parties later filed and exchanged briefs of argument. In the appellant’s brief filed on 19/6/2001 his learned counsel distilled the following 4 issues for determination.

(1) “Whether or not exhibits 1, 2 and tendered from the Bar was sufficient proof of issues of res judicata and claim of the plaintiffs in terms of the pleadings before the court.

(2) Whether or not the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs in their pleadings was for the enforcement of judgment of the High Court previously decided.

(3) Whether or not the learned trial Judge had jurisdiction to find on the basis of exhibits 1, 2 and 3 admitted before the Honourable Court.

(4) Whether or not the learned trial Judge properly evaluated the evidence before the Honourable court.”

For the respondents, the following 2 issues were distilled in their brief of argument filed on 16/1/2002, deemed filed on 30/1/2002 by leave of this court granted on the same date.

(1) “Whether the judgment appealed against is not a consent judgment. If the answer to the above is in the affirmative whether there is the need to adduce evidence as pleaded in the respective pleadings of the parties.