Taoridi A. Sufianu & Ors. V. Wahab Abass Animashaun & Ors. (2000)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OGUNTADE, J.C.A.

The Respondents were the plaintiffs in suit NO. LD/19/77 at the Lagos High Court, and had claimed against the 1st to 3rd Appellants as the defendants for the following reliefs:

“1. …A declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to statutory or customary right of occupancy or interest in all that piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being at Animashaun Village, Abebe, off Babs Animashaun Road, Surulere which with its dimensions and abuttals is more particularly described and delienated on Plan No.HU/LA/3419 of 29th November, 1986 filed in this suit.

2. And/or a declaration that as relations of the customary tenants (deceased) under native law and custom the defendants, as representatives of Sufianu Muse and Sule families have forfeited for misconduct all rights and/or interests, if any, in the said piece or parcel of land.
3. Recovery of possession of the said land.
4. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents and/or privies from entering the said piece of land or in any manner however, interfering with the plaintiffs’ ownership and/or possession of the same.”

In the usual manner, the parties filed and exchanged pleadings which each amended a number of times. The suit was subsequently heard by Akinsanya J. The plaintiffs called five witnesses and the defendants six. On 30 May, 1997, the learned trial Judge in her judgment upheld the claims of the plaintiffs and gave judgment as claimed. Dissatisfied with the said judgment, the defendants have brought this appeal on seven grounds of appeal. In their notice of appeal, the defendants prayed that the judgment in favour of the plaintiffs be set aside and the case of the plaintiffs dismissed with costs. Before this Court, the 4th appellant applied for and was granted the leave to appeal as an interested person. The result is that I have for consideration in this judgment two appeals – one by the defendants before the lower Court and the other by the party joined by this court as an interested party.

In the appellants’ brief filed, the issues for determination were identified as the following:

“(i) Issue – 1

whether the trial Court exercised its discretion judicially and judiciously in the circumstances of this case in refusing to grant the defendants/appellants’ application for further amendment of their 3rd amended statement of defence and whether they were thereby denied their right to fair hearing?.

If the refusal is correct in law, whether the principle in Bello v. Eweka (1981) 1 S.C. 101 and Motunwase v. Sorungbe (1988) 5 NWLR (Pt.92) page 90 preventing the use of admissions in pleadings (here, statement of defence) to grant a declaratory judgment applies and that failure to observe the same is a miscarriage of justice for which the judgment should be set aside.

(ii) Issue – 2

whether on the facts found in the evidence before the Court the land in dispute could be said to have vested in late Sunmonu Animashaun either by native law and custom or by grant and whether the land in dispute is part of the estate of Sunmonu Animashaun and inherited by plaintiffs/respondents. If it is part of the said estate, whether the plaintiffs/respondents have locus standi to prosecute this suit?.

(iii) Issue – 3

whether the defendants are the customary tenants of the plaintiffs?.

Issue – 4

(Iv) whether the learned trial Judge correctly and sufficiently examined the evidence tendered before the court by both sides and whether under the facts and circumstances in this case, appellants are not entitled to judgment in their favour?.”