BEST LAW REPORT SUBSCRIPTION PRICE!!

  • Muniyas (Nig.) Ltd v. Ashafa
  • 642
  • 2012-09-17
  • ₦ 200
  • Buy Now

Muniyas (Nig.) Ltd v. Ashafa

MUNIYAS NIGERIA LIMITED

ALHAJI Y. A. INOUSSA

V

MR. SHITTU ASHAFA

MR. ISIAKA BADA

ALHAJI ALADE SHONIBARE

RASAKI DAWUDU

MR. SAWAWU SHONIBARE

COURT OF APPEAL

( LAGOS DIVISION )

ADZIRA GANA MSHELIA JCA ( Presided )

JOHN INYANG OKORO JCA ( Read the Lead Judgment )

MOHAMMED AMBI-USI DANJUMA JCA

CA/L/650/09

THURSDAY, 17 FEBRUARY 2011

COURT - Case pleaded and proved by parties -  Bindingness of court thereby

EVIDENCE - Unchallenged and uncontroverted evidence - Effect of

INJUNCTION - Injunctive reliefs - Grant of  - Purport of - Perpetual injunction - When granted

INJUNCTION - Perpetual injunction - Nature of - Grant of where substantive right is not established or against completed act Impropriety of

LAND LAW - Easement - Meaning of - Right conferred by - Enforcement of - Party who seeks - What must establish

LAND LAW - Easement - Party seeking enforcement of his right thereto -  What must establish

LAND LAW - Use of land - Exclusive and restrictive right to - Claim for -  Whether translates into right of easement PLEADING - Defective pleading - Effect of

Issues:

  1. Whether it is not wrong in law for the trial judge to grant a relief that is not specifically pleaded and/or proved, to wit that the construction of a three storey building by the defendants infringes the claimants’ right to air.
  2. Whether the claimants/respondents were able to establish or prove any infringement on their right to air or they were only able to prove right to common usage for festival.
  3. Whether the court can grant a perpetual injunction restraining an act that is already completed.
  4. Whether the learned trial judge was right in granting an order of perpetual injunction where the claimants/respondents, have failed to establish a specific relief and/or satisfy the general principle governing the granting of an order of perpetual injunction.”

Facts:

The plaintiffs claimed to be principal members of owners of buildings in the precinct where the disputed land lays which they claimed was conveyed to one Yusuf  Ali and his heirs by deed of indenture. They further claimed that the land was a common air space with rights of easements jointly enjoyed by other owners of the buildings in the precinct and had a common usage for festivals, etc. but that the 1st - 3rd defendants, being descendants of the Yusuf Ali, entered the land and commenced development thereon. The plaintiffs therefore instituted an action in the High Court of Lagos State claiming right of easement to the land, order directing immediate removal of the obstruction of their rights of easement and order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from further obstructing of their right to easement. The defendants however based their ownership of the land on traditional evidence. The trial court granted plaintiffs’ claims in part. The defendants being aggrieved, appealed to the Court of Appeal.