Sunday Oyebadejo V. Ramoni Olaniyi & Ors. (2000)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ONALAJA, J.C.A.

The plaintiff now referred to as appellant in this judgment filed a writ of summons against the three defendants referred to in this judgment as 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents respectively at High Court Ibadan in Ibadan Judicial Division of the High Court of Oyo State with Coram as Honourable Justice R. G. Oyetunde.

After service of the writ of summons on respondents, pleadings were exchanged and amended that at the conclusion of trial it was based on amended pleadings. The amended pleadings shall simply be referred to in this judgment as statement of claim and statement of defence as the respondents had joint legal representation and joint statement of defence.

Following the now accepted rule of law of our civil process as decided in Udechukwu v. Okwuka 1956 SCNLR 189, Chief J.O. Lahau v. Chief Lajayetau & Ors (1972) 6 SC 190, Ajayi v. Military Administrator Ondo State (1997) 5 NWLR (Pt 504) page 237 SC, Odusoga v. Ricketts 19977 NWLR Pt 511 page 1 SC. Aroyebi v. Bello (1997) 11 NWLR (Pt 528)page 268 CA,Ouyero v. Nwadike (1996) 9 NWLR (Pt.471) page 231 CA, University of Calabar v. Essien 1996 10 NWLR Pt 47 page 322 CA: Enigbokan v. American International Insurance Co. Ltd. (1994) 4 NWLR (Pt 34 ) page 1, Nta v. Anigbo 1972 5 SC 156 that in all actions in the superior courts of record where pleadings set out the facts relied upon by each party, a writ must be taken out of the Court Registry. But once pleadings are filed and exchanged the statement of claim thenceforth supersedes the writ. It is the law that the writ itself must disclose reasonable cause of action. In many cases the statement of claim more than a writ amplifies through facts averred the real action a party pursues.

Applying above principle of supersession of writ of summons by statement of claim, I set out some paragraphs of the statement of claim which reflect the claims of the appellant as follows:-

“18. The plaintiff then got to know that the 2nd defendant was negotiating to sell the said car. The plaintiff made desperate search for him and upon confrontation by the plaintiff the 2nd defendant hatched out a bogus story that the plaintiff has sold the said car to him. The plaintiff hereby pleads fraud on the plaintiff by the defendants

Particulars of Fraud:

1. All documents used in the criminal trial were forged documents purporting to change ownership.
2. There was no contract of sale of car between the plaintiff and defendants.
3. The 1st defendant at no time possesses a car and I gave my car in this case to facilitate the contract award agreed genuinely by me with the defendants.
4. The plaintiff never signed any sale of car agreement with the 1st defendant or any of them and plead non est factum.
5. The plaintiff later got to know that the defendants are professional tricksters.

Whereof the plaintiff’s claims jointly and severally against the defendants are as follows:-

(1) The sum of Thirty Thousand Naira (N30,000.00) being general damages in detinue for the unlawful detention of the plaintiff’s car Peugeot 505 SR Saloon with registration No. OY 1135FE at lbadan since 12/12/86 up till this day by the defendants.

(2) A declaration that the release of the plaintiff’s car Peugeot 505 SR with Chasis/Engine No. 1234017 registration No. OY1135FE released to the 1st defendant Alhaji Ramoni Olaniyi on a motion ex parte by the High court lbadan in appeal 1/16/CA/89 Alhaji Ramoni Olaniyi v. Commissioner of Police on the 5th day of February, 1990 is void and of no effect being in breach of the fundamental rules of natural justice.

(3) The sum of Five Thousand, Four Hundred Naira (N5,400.00) being special damages for loss of use of the said car between 12/12/86 and this day.

(4) A mandatory order for the delivery and return to the plaintiff by the defendants of said Peugeot 505 SR Saloon with registration No. OY1135FE.”

After completion of pleadings the case proceeded to trial, in all appellant inclusive of himself called five witnesses through whom documentary evidence were admitted and marked as exhibits. All appellant’s witnesses were cross examined by the learned counsel for the respondents.

On their part, each respondent testified on behalf of himself and were cross-examined.