Jimoh Alabi Alapo V. Mr. Augustus O. Agbokere & Anor (2010)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

GEORGE ADESOLA OGUNTADE, J.S.C.

The original at the High Court of Lagos State were Alhaji Moshood Ajala and Alhaji Yekini Sowunmi. They died in the course of the proceedings at the court and the present appellant was substituted for them. The claims of the plaintiff now appellant as stated in his further amended statement of Claim read:

“1. Declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to a statutory right of occupancy in respect of the parcel of land edged GREEN in plan No. CD/97/83 drawn by C. Olu Dawodu, Licensed Surveyor and also edged yellow in Plan Nos. MAH.01/L/89 and MAH09/L/89 drawn by M.A. Hassan and more particularly called 17. Olusola Keku Street, Itire, Lagos State.

2. The sum of N120,000.00 (One hundred and twenty thousand naira) being Special and General damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of trespass committed by the defendants on the building and landing dispute herein and the Defendants occupation of same.

Particulars of Special Damages

A. Costs of the repairs of the building on the lands in dispute – N70,350.00

B. Rent for the five 3-bedroom flats and one Warehouse at the rate of N300.00 per flat per month from 1st January, 1990 to 29th August, 1991 – N36,000.00

C. Rent for the one mini flat at the rate of N250.000.00 per month from 1-1-90 to 20-8-91 N6,000.00

= N111,000.00

General damages – N9,000.00”

The parties filed and exchanged pleadings after which the suit was tried by Sotuminu J (as she then was). On 23/12/99, the trial judge gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff. She granted the declaration sought and awarded N70,350.00 as special damages in favour of the plaintiffs.

The defendants were dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court. They brought an appeal against it before the Court of Appeal, Lagos (hereinafter referred to as ‘the court below). On 23/05/03, the court below allowed the defendants’ appeal and the judgment of the trial court was set aside. The plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the judgment of the court below and have come on a final appeal before this court. In the appellant’s brief filed on behalf of the plaintiffs, the issues for determination in this appeal were identified as the following:

“(i) Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in their decision in holding that the claims of the appellant were caught by the doctrine of ‘RES JUDICATA’.

(ii) Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in their decision when they held that the composite plans filed by the parties were irrelevant to the determination of this suit.

(iii) Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right to have held that the learned trial judge did not properly evaluate the evidence before her at the trial.”