BEST LAW REPORT SUBSCRIPTION PRICE!!

  • Regd. Trustees, Ahmadiyya Mission v. Sule
  • 67
  • 2001-09-10
  • ₦ 200
  • Buy Now

Regd. Trustees, Ahmadiyya Mission v. Sule

THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF AHMADIYYA MISSION OF NIGERIA

( By their Attorney Ali Onuoha )

V

BABA MALLAM SULE

HADJIA SAUDE MORGAJI

CHIEF AMINU OLOWU

MOHAMADU AYO OGUNDIPE

ISHOLA KADIRI

HABIBA YAHAYA

YAHAYA HABIBA

COURT OF APPEAL

( PORT HARCOURT DIVISION )

IGNATIUS CHUKWUDI PATS-ACHOLONU, JCA ( Presided )

MICHAEL EYARUOMA AKPIROROH, JCA

ABOYI JOHN IKONGBEH, JCA ( Read the Lead Judgment )

CA/PH/187/90

THURSDAY, 22ND FEBRUARY, 2001

EVIDENCE - Admission - Facts admitted - How treated - Whether can be repudiated

LAND LAW - Trespass - Meaning of - Who can maintain an action in

WORDS AND PHRASES - “Trespass” - Meaning of - Who can maintain an action in

Issue:

Whether the trial court was right in the circumstances in dismissing the plaintiff’s action as it did.

Facts:

The plaintiff, through its attorney, had taken out a writ of summons against the defendants jointly and severally, claiming damages for acts of trespass and injunction restraining the defendants from committing further acts of trespass on its land referred to as No. 16/18 Nekede Street, Owerri. The plaintiff’s claim was that the land in dispute was conveyed to him by the 3 rd and 5th defendants who were members of the Yoruba Muslim Community through a deed of conveyance executed in its favour. PW1, the plaintiff’s attorney in its evidence did not know whether the 3rd - 5th defendants were in a position to convey the land as they purported to do.  The 3rd to 5th defendants in fact knew nothing about the ownership of the land and therefore, were unable to prove that the land belonged to the plaintiff.

DW2 testified that the land was a communal land, and was never allocated to any individual or a group of individuals.  He also testified that the land was allocated to the Hausa Muslim Community who later accommodated the Yoruba Muslim Community thereon.  The plaintiff’s counsel expressly admitted that the land was a communal land.  The court therefore dismissed the action.  It is against this background that the plaintiff/ appellant filed this appeal.