BEST LAW REPORT SUBSCRIPTION PRICE!!

  • Afonja v. Kasali
  • 138
  • 2003-01-20
  • ₦ 200
  • Buy Now

Afonja v. Kasali

ALHAJI RAMONI AFONJA

V

YESUFU KASALI

LAMINA AINA EBILA

CHIEF TOMORI

COURT OF APPEAL

( IBADAN DIVISION )

DALHATU ADAMU, JCA ( Presided and Read the Lead Judgment )

FRANCIS FEDODE TABAI, JCA

OLUFUNLOLA OYELOLA ADEKEYE, JCA

CA/I/139/89

WEDNESDAY, 30TH JANUARY, 2002

APPEAL - Judgment of trial court - Error therein - When will result in appeal being allowed

APPEAL - Respondents notice - Whether a separate appeal or a crossappeal

COURT - Trial court - Judgment of - Error therein - When will result in appeal being allowed

COURT - Superior court - Issues already decided by Supreme Court Whether an inferior court can re-open or re-litigate in order to arrive at a different decision

COURT - Trial court - Enforcement of judgment of appellate court by trial court - Duty of to confine itself to the final conclusion reached by the appellate court

JUDGMENT AND ORDERS - Judgment given by appellate court - Duty of trial court to confine itself to final conclusion reached by appellate court while enforcing same


JUDGMENT AND ORDERS - Judgment of trial court - Error therein - When will result in appeal being allowed LAND LAW - Trespass - Action for - Who can maintain

Issues:

1.            Whether the respondents were entitled to remain on the land in dispute, the judgment for declaration and order of injunction notwithstanding.

2.            Whether the trial Judge was correct in the interpretation he placed on the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

3.            Whether the trial Judge has jurisdiction to reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal by the interpretation he placed on it.

Facts:

Appellant as plaintiff at the High Court of Justice Ogun State sitting at Ilaro succeeded in his claim against the respondent for declaration of title, forfeiture of defendants’ interest, possession and injunction in respect of the land in dispute. Respondents filed a notice of appeal against the said judgment and thereafter applied for a stay of execution of the said judgment. Order of stay was granted while the appellant also appealed against the order of stay granted by the trial court. The appeal against the order for stay was allowed while the respondents’ earlier appeal was dismissed; when dismissing the appeal the trial court’s judgment was varied to exclude the order for forfeiture. The Court of Appeal further decided that although the appellant was entitled to possession, the trial court order of possession was not necessary or proper because the respondents had already given up possession by alienating their holdings.

Meanwhile, the respondents allotees remained in possession of the land in dispute and exercised acts of ownership on it as well as selling and collecting rents from their tenants on the said land. The appellant therefore applied for forms 48 and 49 under the Sheriff and Civil Processes Law of Ogun State for contempt proceedings against the defendants and their privies. The trial court dismissed the application and held that the respondents and their privies can still continue to occupy or make use of the land as long as they do not construct or build on the said land. Aggrieved, the appellant has now appealed against the order of the trial court dismissing the application against the respondent and their privies to show cause why they should not be committed for contempt.