Search a Keyword!

Search our legal repository for any term from articles, statutes to cases

G. B. Amancio Santos V. Ikosi Industries Limited & Anor (1942) LJR-WACA

G. B. Amancio Santos V. Ikosi Industries Limited & Anor (1942)

LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal

Trespass to land—Pier built on land one foreshore—Estoppel perrein judicatam—Possession—Laches—Damages—Retrial.

Facts

The defendants purchased from the plaintiff land at Aiyetoro and conveyance was executed showing the area. Damages were cliimed for trespass committed by the defendants in building a pier beyond the area bought. The second defendants who were joined as co-defendants leased a foreshore plot to first defendants on which and the adjoining foreshore the trespass was alleged to have taken place. They claimed that the land was communal land owned by the people of Epe. In the alternative the plaintiff was said to have stood by with knowledge of expenditure on the building and not to have suffered any damage.

There was a reply by plaintiff pleading a previous judgment and a rejoinder denying that the land was the subject matter of the previous suit or that Epe Native Administration or the people of Epe were parties.

Judgment was given dismissing the plaintiff’s action on the ground that (a) the previous judgment did not operate as an estoppel (b) the ownership and (c) possession of disputed land were not proved (d) the land in dispute was beach land and vested in the community.

Held

That the land in dispute was not foreshore; that as the parties were the same and the area included in the area in dispute in the previous suit the plea of -estoppel should have been upheld; that the finding based on the case of Henshavy v. Renshaw solely concerned with native law and rustom at Calabar was a misdirection as far as land at Epe is concerned. That matters relating to possession were overlooked.

See also  Thomas Archibongi & Anor V. Commissioner Of Police (1946) LJR-WACA

Retrial ordered on ground that trial Judge holding that the action failed on the grounds he gave, found it unnecessary to go into question of aches and damages.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *