Popoola Bamgbegbin & Ors V. Jimoh Atanda Oriare (2009)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

T. MUHAMMAD, J.S.C

Paragraph 43 of the statement of claim of the respondents in this appeal and plaintiffs in the High Court of Justice of Oyo State holden at Ibadan (trial court) reads as follows:

“WHEREOF the plaintiffs claims:

a) AGAINST ALL THE DEFENDANTS

1) DECLARATION that the members of Oriare family of Oriare Compound are the persons entitled to apply for and granted the certificate of Statutory rights of occupancy in respect of a piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being at APETE AREA OF IBADAN excepting the areas already granted by the plaintiff’s family absolutely and more particularly described and odgo(sic) GREEN on PLAN NO. LW 551/87 of 23-11-87 drawn by L. LAYI ARINOLA licensed surveyor or Ibadan.

2) INJUNCTION against the defendants, their heirs, agents and servants and all manner of persons that may be claiming through them from committing any act of trespass entering and/or doing anything whatsoever with the said land.

3) FIVE THOUSAND NAIRA (N5,000.00) from each of the defendants being damages for trespass being committed by each of the defendants on the said land.

b) AGAINST THE 1st – 4th defendants only

a. Forfeiture of the area edge (sic) PURPLE on the plaintiff’s (sic) plan

b. Possession of the said land.

c. INJUNCTION restraining the said defendants from entering the said portion or doing anything or claiming any right that may affect the interest of the plaintiffs.”

Pleadings were settled. Hearing commenced and closed. Addresses by learned counsel for the respective parties were taken by the trial court. At the end, the learned trial Judge made several orders including grant, forfeiture, injunction etc. Some of the parties were dissatisfied with the trial court’s decision. Notices of Appeals including cross-appeals were, as a result, filed to the Ibadan Division of the Court of Appeal (court below). The main appeal and the cross appeal were, each, partly allowed by the court below. The present appellants were dissatisfied with the portion which dismissed their appeal and they now appealed to this court. The cross-appellants also challenged that portion of the lower court’s decision with which they were dissatisfied.

In this court, briefs were filed and exchanged. In his brief of argument the learned counsel for the appellants formulated two issues for consideration. They read as follows:

1) “Whether the Justices of the lower court were not wrong in not dismissing the 1st and 2nd Respondents claims against the 1st – 4th appellants when their reliance was on a judgment used as issue estoppel when the conditions precedent to its application was not fulfilled and when the claims of the 1st and 2nd Respondents privies in the earlier case relied upon was dismissed against the named defendants therein on the same subject matter.