Hon. Justice Adenekan Ademola & Anor. V. Chief Harold Sodipo & Ors.(1992)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

E. OGUNDARE, J.S.C.

By paragraph 27 of their further amended Statement of Claim the plaintiffs who sued in their individual capacities as beneficiaries of the Estate of Isaac Ademoye Sodipo deceased, claimed from the defendant, the Executor and Trustee of the said Estate

“(1) A declaration that the continuing demolition and or reconstruction of the plaintiffs’ family house at Apagun Market, Ikereku, Abeokuta in the Abeokuta Judicial Division under the authority direction and with the consent of the defendant is ultra vires the powers of the defendant as the Executor of the Estate of Isaac Ademoye Sodipo (deceased) the father of the plaintiffs and therefore illegal and void.

(2) A perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his servants, agents, privies, or other representatives however called from taking any step in further demolishing and or reconstructing the plaintiffs’ family property at Apagun Market Ikereku, Abeokuta aforesaid.

(3) An order removing the defendant as Executor and Trustee of the Estate and appointing Judicial Trustees in his stead.

(4) N500,000 being damages for breach of trust and damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the demolition of the family house.”

Pleadings having been filed and exchanged, amended and further amended, the action proceeded to trial on the plaintiffs’ further amended statement of claim and the defendant’s amended Statement of Defence. At the conclusion of trial and after addresses by learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Chief Judge in a considered judgment found for the plaintiffs on their claims 1, 2, and 4 above and entered judgment in their favour accordingly. He refused their claim (3). He made some orders which became part of the issues contested both in the Court of Appeal and in this Court.

Being dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned trial Chief Judge, the defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal, whilst the plaintiffs also cross-appealed on the part of the judgment not in their favour. Mr. Akanni Osho Sodipo who testified at the trial in favour of the defendant applied to the Court of Appeal and obtained leave to appeal against the judgment of the trial Court as an interested party. The appeal of the defendant and that of the party interested succeeded in part; the cross-appeal of the plaintiffs was dismissed. All the parties have again appealed to this Court against various parts of the judgment of the Court below not in their favour. In addition, the plaintiffs also appealed against the decision of the Court of Appeal granting the party interested leave to appeal to that Court under section 222(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979. Both their interlocutory and their cross-appeal were consolidated and heard together in this Court.

Perhaps this is a convenient stage to dispose of that interlocutory appeal. The Ground of Appeal in respect of the interlocutory decision of the Court of Appeal granting leave to the party interested to appeal under Section 222(a) of the Constitution reads as follows:-

“1. The learned Justices of the Court of Appeal misdirected themselves in law with regard to the quantum of evidence necessary to qualify a person as a ‘person interested’ under section 222(a) of the 1979 Constitution when they held that Mr. Akanni Osho Sodipo has sufficient interest in the subject matter of this suit to bring him within the provision of section 222(a) of the 1979 Constitution.

PARTICULARS OF MISDIRECTION

(a) In the notice of appeal exhibited by Mr.Akanni Osho Sodipo, Mr. Sodipo did not claim any relief for himself but merely for the defendant/respondent who was already well represented.

(b) Mr. Akanni Osho Sodipo gave evidence as a witness for the defendant at the High Court and was already aware of the suit but chose to do nothing.

(c) The fact that he was a beneficiary of the property in dispute without more does not qualify him as a person interested under section 222(a) of the 1979 Constitution.