Mr. Israel Idowu & Ors V. The Registered Trustees Of Ona Iwa Mimo Cherubim And Seraphim Church Of Nigeria And Overseas (2012)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MOPUPE FASANMI, J.C.A (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Justice Oyo State sitting at High Court No.2 Oyo delivered on the 18th of April 2007.

The brief facts of the case that can be gleaned from the pleadings and the evidence before the lower Court are that the Respondents were the plaintiffs at the lower Court. It is their case that the late Baba Aladura J.O. Adeola was the founder of Ona Iwa Mimo of C&S Church of Nigeria and overseas with headquarters at Igboho and branches in many towns including the one in dispute at New Aketan, Oyo, Oyo state. It is their case that the late Adeola was granted land by Aketan community on which the church building was built through members’ contribution.

It was in their evidence that one Prophet Olubi Idowu was posted to New Aketan branch of the church from Ogboora by late Baba Aladura Adeola to head it. In 1992, late Prophet Olubi Idowu (the father of the 1st Appellant) the 2nd and 3rd Appellants with others defected from the church to establish New Ona Iwa Mimo Onimajemu C&S church. Respondents efforts to retrieve their properties from the Appellants proved abortive, hence they instituted action at the lower court. They tendered exhibits A, B, & C which are the certified True copy of the land agreement, certificate of Incorporation and the constitution of the church respectively

While the case of the Appellants who were the Defendants at the lower court is that Prophet Olubi Idowu founded the church at New Aketan, Oyo before he decided to join Ona Iwa Mimo C&S church and that in 1992, he decided to opt out of Ona Iwa Mimo C&S church to found New Ona Iwa Mimo Onimajemu C&S church. The only witness for the Defendants was a signatory to Exhibit ‘A’ tendered by the Respondents and they relied on the said exhibit for their claim to title of the land in dispute.

The lower court gave judgment in favour of the Respondents. Dissatisfied with the Judgment, Appellants appealed to this court. In compliance with the rules of this court, Appellants brief of argument is dated 28th of October 2008 but filed on 29th October 2008. Respondents, brief of argument is dated 22nd of December 2008 but filed on 23rd of December 2008.

Appellants distilled six issues for determination thus:-

1. Was the suit properly constituted when the plaintiffs sued the defendants on a personal basis.
2. Was it proper for Defendants to opt out of Ona Iwa Mimo C&S in June 1992.
3. What was the effect of incorporation on a branch’s landed properties
4. Was it permissible for oral evidence to modify exhibit A
5. Whether or not sections 673 (1) & (2) and 679 were properly interpreted by the learned trial Judge
6. Whether or not the trial Court’s decision was supportable by the evidence before the learned trial Judge.

The Respondents in its brief distilled two issues for determination as follows:

1. whether the suit was properly constituted
2. Whether the Respondents have proved their title to land and Church building thereon involved in this case.

Appellants filed five grounds of appeal but distilled six issues for determination. It is settled that no party to an appeal is allowed to formulate more than one issue from one ground of appeal and Courts frown at the proliferation of issues. see the case of DREXEL ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES LTD v. TRANS INTERNATIONAL BANKS LTD (2008) 36 NSCQR page 1219 at 1258. Counsel should please take note. Looking at the grounds of appeal, the Respondents’ issues appear to be succinct on the complaints the Appellants have against the decision of the lower Court. I therefore intend to determine the appeal on the Respondents’ issues which have adequately addressed the Appellants issues in their brief. Appellants issues are therefore subsumed in the Respondents issues.

ISSUE ONE

Whether the suit was properly constituted.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the suit was not properly constituted because the Appellants were sued in their personal capacities and not in a representative capacity as required by Order 11 Rule 3 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 1988 of Oyo State especially as shown by D.W1’s evidence at page 21 of the record wherein the witness Prophet Joseph Adedoja asserted:

”There are houses on the land in dispute now.

The Church has a building and 2 members of the Church have 2 houses there also.”