BEST LAW REPORT SUBSCRIPTION PRICE!!

  • Robert v. Chinda
  • 550
  • 2010-12-13
  • ₦ 200
  • Buy Now

Robert v. Chinda

MR. E. S. ROBERT

RIVERS STATE HOUSING & PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

V

MR. D. O. CHINDA

DR. P. O. W. CHINDA

(for themselves and as representing the family of Weli Chinda of Rumuwoji, Diobu, Port Harcourt)

COURT OF APPEAL

(PORT HARCOURT DIVISION)

TIJJANI ABDULLAHI JCA (Presided)


KUDIRAT MOTONMORI O. KEKERE-EKUN JCA


IBRAHIM M. MUSA SAULAWA JCA (Read the Lead Ruling)

CA/PH/160/2008

CA/PH/98M/2008

THURSDAY, 2 APRIL 2009

APPEAL - Court of Appeal - Duty on to preserve res in a matter when a party has filed an appeal against the decision of a lower court

APPEAL - Valid notice and grounds of appeal - Where lacking - Attitude of the Court of Appeal

COURT - Abuse of court process - Duty on court to prevent

COURT - Court of Appeal - Duty on to preserve res in a matter when a party has filed an appeal against the decision of a lower court

EQUITY - Party coming to equity - Need for to come with clean hands and to do equity

JUDGMENT AND ORDERS - Stay of execution - Preservation of the res in dispute by granting stay of execution of lower court’s judgment - Duty on trial courts and appellate courts to ensure


JUDGMENT AND ORDERS - Stay of execution of judgment - Application for - Grant or refusal of - Exceptional factors or circumstances warranting

JUDGMENT AND ORDERS - Stay of execution of judgment - Grant of - Factors to be considered therein

JUDGMENT AND ORDERS - Stay of execution of judgment - Grant of - Onus of proof to show exceptional circumstances for - On whom lies - How same can be discharged

JUDGMENT AND ORDERS - Stay of execution of judgment of a lower court - Application for - Discretionary power of Court of Appeal to grant or refuse - How exercised

LEGAL PRACTITIONER - Counsel - Duty on to properly advise his client on merits of his case and appropriate means of seeking redress in court

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Stay of execution - Preservation of the res in dispute by granting stay of execution of lower court’s judgment - Duty on trial courts and appellate courts to ensure

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Stay of execution of judgment Application for - Grant or refusal of - Exceptional factors or circumstances warranting

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Stay of execution of judgment - Grant of - Factors to be considered therein

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Stay of execution of judgment - Grant of - Onus of proof to show exceptional circumstances for - On whom lies - How same can be discharged

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Stay of execution of judgment of a lower court - Application for - Discretionary power of Court of Appeal to grant or refuse - How exercised

WORDS AND PHRASES - ‘Stay in judicial parlance’ - Definition of

Issues:

1.             Whether this honourable court should in the circumstances of this case exercise its discretion in favour of the appellants/ applicants by ordering stay of execution of the judgment of the trial court pending the determination of the appellants/ applicants’ appeal against same to this honourable court.

2.             Whether this honourable court should exercise its discretion to grant leave to the applicants to raise fresh issues in this appeal.

3.             Whether this honourable court should exercise its discretion to extend the time within which the applicants can file and serve the appellants’ brief of argument and to deem the said brief as having been properly filed and served.

Facts:

The respondents instituted an action at the Rivers State High Court, Port Harcourt seeking declaration of court on the disputed land and property known as “Okporo Woji,” declaration that the purported sale of the disputed land and property thereon by the 2nd appellant to the 1st appellant is null and void and an order of injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with their ownership, possession and use of the disputed land and property.

The 1st appellant counterclaimed, seeking a declaration of court that he legally bought the land from the 2nd appellant and an order of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from the property. The trial court in its judgment of 26 May 2003 granted the respondents’ claim and dismissed the appellants’ counterclaim. Dissatisfied, the appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal. On 9 May 2008, they filed a motion on notice praying for an order of the Court of Appeal staying the execution of the trial court’s judgment in question and on 12 May 2008, they filed another application for leave of the appeal court to argue new issues on appeal. The Court of Appeal consolidated the two applications and took arguments of counsel thereon.