Osu Obla & Ors. V. Osanga Otagoyi & Ors. (2006)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

TSAMIYA, J.C.A.

By a writ of summons and statement of claim filed on 20th August, 1991, the appellants as plaintiffs commenced an action at the High Court of Justice Plateau State, sitting at Keffi Judicial Division, against the respondents as defendants, claiming against them the following:-

1. Declaration that the purported Keffi Local Government Certificate of Occupancy No. 119 as plot No. KLG/CH/221 issued by the 2nd and 3rd defendants over their farmland and properties to the 1st defendant is illegal, null and void and of no effect whatsoever;
2. An injunction restraining the 1st defendant from using the said Keffi Local Government Certificate No. 119 and as Plot No. KLG/CH/221 wrongfully and illegally issued by the 2nd and 3rd defendants over the plaintiffs’ traditional farmland and the plaintiffs are still the traditional and customary owners of their farmland at Rafin Gabas Iguro in Kokona District of Keffi Local Government Area.

In their reaction, the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein, as defendants filed a joint statement of defence dated 23rd of November, 1992, denying the claim and in paragraphs 7 and 10 of their joint statement of defence that the said Certificate of Occupancy was issued on 3/8/82 after proper satisfaction that all legal procedures were complied with before being issued to the 1st respondent. That the appellants are not entitled to any relief or declaration or injunction, and this Honourable Court, in the interest of justice should hold:

(a) that the said Certificate of Occupancy No. 119 issued by the 2nd and 3rd defendants to the 1st defendant was validly made and issued; and

(b) dismiss the plaintiffs’ action with substantial costs in favour of the 2nd and 3rd defendants.

Sequel to this, the 1st defendant/applicant filed a motion on notice dated 20th November, 1996, praying for the dismissal of the entire suit on the ground of res-judicata. The motion and affidavit in support and exhibits of the record.

In response to the above, the appellants filed a counter-affidavit of 12 paragraphs sworn to by the 1st appellant on behalf of the appellants. The counter-affidavit is at page 112.

The motion on notice was argued by the counsel to both parties and in a reserved ruling delivered on 25th October, 1996, the learned trial Judge Sankey, J. after a meticulous consideration of the statement of claim, the 1st defendant’s affidavit in support of the motion as well as plaintiffs’/counter-affidavit, up-held the plea of res-judicata and dismissed the plaintiffs’/appellants’ claim.

Dissatisfied by the ruling, the appellants have filed the instant appeal predicated on three grounds of appeal. The three grounds of appeal with their particulars read as follows:

Ground One

The learned trial court erred in law in dismissing the plaintiff’s (appellant’s) claims in suit No. PLD/28/91 as being barred on res judicata, and when it held: “that the land in dispute is the same as that in previous suits in particular those referred to in exhibits “A”, page 8, exhibit “B” page 1 and exhibit “E” page 29 which occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

Particulars of errors in law

(i) The legal issue(s) raised are not the same between the parties in suit No. PLD/K/28/91 and the previous proceedings exhibits in exhs. “A”, “B” and “E”.

(ii) The parties are not the same nor privies in suit No. PLD/K/28/91 in the annexures “A”, “B”, “E” and “F” cases annexed to the affidavit of the respondents/applicants.