- Shobajo vs. Ikotun
- ₦ 200
Shobajo vs. Ikotun
ALHAJI SAFIRIYU YINUSA SHOBAJO
COURT OF APPEAL
( LAGOS DIVISION )
GEORGE ADESOLA OGUNTADE, JCA ( Presided )
SULEIMAN GALADIMA, JCA
PIUS OLAYIWOLA ADEREMI, JCA ( Read the Lead Judgment )
10TH JUNE, 2002
CONTRACT - Illegality - Effect of on an agreement - Ex turpi causa non
oritur actio applied
- Witnesses - Whether a particular witness must be called
FRAUD - Fraudulent misrepresentation - Inference of where evidence
abound that a party did not approach court with clean hands
JUDGMENT AND ORDERS - Declaration that an instrument or transaction is
void - Whether order setting aside can also be made ex nihilo nihil venit
LAND LAW - Agreement for sale - Where illegal - Effect - Ex turpi causa
non oritur actio applied
LAW - Agreement for sale of land - When or how created
LAND LAW - Deed - Cancellation of - When
will be the appropriate and effective remedy in land transaction
LAW - Fraud - Effect of on land transactions
LAND LAW - Interests of adverse claimants to land - How to rank where
the legal title is vested in a common vendor - Qui prior est tempore potior est
LAND LAW - Possession - Concurrent possession of land by adverse
claimants - Whether allowed
LAW - Purchase receipt coupled with going into possession of land
- Interest created thereby
LAW - Void instrument or transaction - Whether can be set aside
MAXIM - Ex nihilo nihil venit - Applied to whether a void transaction
or instrument can be set aside
MAXIM - Ex turpi causa non oritur actio - Applied to the effect of
illegality in matter or purpose of an agreement
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Witnesses - Whether a particular witness must
Which of the appellant and the cross-appellant did
Iyabo OlojoKosoko (their common vendor) transfer her title, right and interest
in the said property to.
Whether the failure of the appellant to call in
evidence Iyabo Olojo Kosoko his vendor was fatal to his case.
Whether judgment entered in favour of the
cross-appellant in respect of his counter-claim can be justified.
plaintiff/appellant commenced this action claiming an order setting aside
certificates of title issued to the defendant on the land in dispute;
declaration of entitlement to certificate of occupancy over the disputed land
and injunction. The defendant/cross-appellant counter-claimed for possession,
injunction and mesne profits.
pleadings and evidence before the trial court both parties agreed to having
acquired their respective interests from a common vendor, Iyabo Olojo-Kosoko.
The said Olojo-Kosoko was not called to testify.
conclusion of trial, plaintiffs case was dismissed while judgment was entered
for the defendant on his counter-claim but for the relief for mesne profits.
Aggrieved by the decision, the plaintiff
appealed while the defendant cross-appealed against the decision on mesne