BEST LAW REPORT SUBSCRIPTION PRICE!!

  • Jimoh v. Akande
  • 129
  • 2002-11-18
  • ₦ 200
  • Buy Now

Jimoh v. Akande

MALLAM YUSUF JIMOH

MALLAM RAIMI ALAPARUN

MALLAM YISA ALAPARUN

V

MALLAM KARIMU AKANDE

ALHAJI ISOLA ARE OGELE

COURT OF APPEAL

( ILORIN DIVISION )

MURITALA AREMU OKUNOLA, JCA ( Presided )

PATRICK IBE AMAIZU, JCA ( Read the Lead Judgment )

WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN, JCA

CA/IL/2000

MONDAY, 19TH NOVEMBER, 2001

APPEAL - Ground of appeal - Appellant filing more than one ground of appeal on an exhibit admitted in a proceeding - Whether amounts to repitition

APPEAL - Wrongful exclusion of evidence - When will not result in reversal of any decision in a case by appellate court - Section 227(2), Evidence Act

ESTOPPEL - Res judicata - Plea of in a case - Pre-requisites for a successful plea of

EVIDENCE - Wrongful exclusion of evidence - When will not result in reversal of any decision in a case by appellate court - Section 227(2), Evidence Act

JUDGMENT AND ORDERS - Judgment - Whether conclusive proof as against parties of facts directly in issue - Section 54, Evidence Act


LAND LAW - Survey plan - Whether necessary in every case where land is in dispute

MAXIMS - ‘Res judicata’ - Meaning of

PARTIES - Privy - Who is - Types and respective examples of

WORDS AND PHRASES - ‘Distinct’ - Meaning of WORDS AND PHRASES - ‘Res judicata’ - Meaning of

Issues:

1.            Whether the appellant’s case was properly held to be caught by the doctrine of estoppel per rem judicatam.

2.            Whether the verdict of the lower court is supportable and  proper in view of the totality of the cases of the parties placed before it.

Facts:

The appellants were the plaintiffs at the Upper Area Court. Their claim against the respondents who were the defendants in the said court as stated by the 1st appellant is for trespass on his land lying at Jaaju Olosunde against the defendants. At the trial, the claim was enlarged by the 3rd appellant to include injunction for trespass and title to the said land.

The Upper Area Court after hearing the parties and their witnesses, visited the land in dispute. Thereafter it gave its judgment and found for the plaintiffs and judgment was entered in their favour.

The respondents were dissatisfied with the judgment. They appealed to the High Court, Ilorin Division, in its appellate session. The High Court allowed the appeal. It is against the judgment of the appellate session of the Kwara State High Court, Ilorin Division, that the appellants have further appealed to the Court of Appeal.