In the Supreme Court of
Nigeria
![image](/2020/10/lawreport.jpg")
Holden at Abuja
![image](/2020/10/NWLRland.jpg")
On Friday, the 5th day of June, 2020
Before Their Lordships
Nwali Sylvester Ngwuta
Olukayode Ariwoola
John Inyang Okoro
Amina Adamu Augie
Uwani Musa Abba Aji
Justices, Supreme Court
SC.662/2015
Between
- Mr. Saibu Adekunjo
- Mr. Jimoh Adekunjo
- Mr. Taiwo Odunlami
- Mr. Tajudeen Adekunjo
- Mr. Akimu M. Adeoye Appellants
And
- Chief Salami Hussain
- Saibu Ilo
- Mustapha Ganiyu Ajogbede
- Peter Babatunde
- Hussain Amore Respondents
(Lead Judgement delivered by Honourable Nwali Sylvester Ngwuta,
JSC)
Facts
The Appellants commenced an action at the High Court of Ogun
State against the Respondents claiming inter alia, a declaration
that they are entitled to the Statutory Right of Occupancy in
respect of a parcel of land lying and situate at Ilemu/Ifako
village via Ado-Odo, Ogun State. The Appellants described the land
as being bound at the southern part by Ifio land, northern part by
Ifighe farmland, left hand side by Idomiorin farmland and on the
right hand side by Odu, Ati-Kekure Idojuna farmland. The Appellants
relied on a previous decision from an arbitration relating to the
land, Exhibit A.
The Respondents denied the Appellants’ claim, in their defence.
In addition, the 4th Respondent counter-claimed for declaration of
Customary/Statutory Right of Occupancy in respect of the parcel of
land, which he described as lying on Alapati Magban Road via
Ado-Odo, Ota Local Government Area of Ogun State. He described the
land as being bound on the first side by Olayiwola family, second
side by Amore family, third side by Ifio family and fourth side by
Idobarun family. Also, the 5th Respondent filed a Counter-claim and
sought a declaration that his family is entitled to the
Customary/Statutory Right of Occupancy over the parcel of land
lying at Alapati Magban Road via Ado-Odo/Ota Local Government Area
of Ogun State. He described the land to be bound on the first side
by Ijigbe family, second side by Idamarien, third side by Ifio
family and fourth side by Ore River.
At the conclusion of trial, the court held that the Appellants
were entitled to the Statutory Right of Occupancy in respect of the
land. The court however, refused the Appellants’ prayer for
forfeiture of the Respondents’ customary tenancy, but granted an
order of perpetual injunction against them. Dissatisfied with the
decision of the trial court, the Respondents successfully appealed
to the Court of Appeal, which informed the Appellants’ appeal to
the Supreme Court.
Issues for Determination
The following were the issues considered by the Apex Court for
determination of the appeal –
1. Whether by the pleading and evidence adduced, the Appellants
established the identity of the land in dispute.
2. Whether in view of the applicable laws, the Court of Appeal
was in error to have set aside the Order of Injunction made by the
trial court in favour of the Appellants.
Arguments
On the first issue, counsel for the Appellants argued that the
Court of Appeal was wrong when it held that the description of the
land in dispute contained in the relief was insufficient to
identify the land, as the relief was different from the pleading.
Counsel stated that the omission of the name of the land in dispute
from the body of the Statement of Claim and the incorporation of
same in the relief may have been inelegant, but did not detract
from the need to do substantial justice. He also contended that the
relief is part of the pleading, and the Respondents joined issues
with the Appellants on the location of the land in dispute. He
relied on the case of ALHAJI SAFIANU AMINU & ORS. v ISIAKA HASSAN &
ORS. (2014) 1 SCNJ Page 163 at 181. He submitted further that given
the state of pleadings, the Respondents cannot be presumed to be in
the dark as to the identity of the land in dispute. Countering the
submission of the Appellant, counsel for the Respondents reiterated
the decision of the Court of Appeal that the identity of the land
in dispute was in issue, and same was not established. He stated
that the Court of Appeal considered Exhibit A, which the trial
court relied on for the identity of the land, and concluded that
same was not helpful, as the 5th Respondent who was the overlord of
the other Respondents was not a party to the arbitration. Counsel
argued that since the identity of the land in dispute could not be
settled and the Appellants failed to file a Survey Plan, the Court
of Appeal was right to hold that the identity of the land was not
established.
Regarding the second issue, counsel for the Appellants argued
that, in view of the Declaration of Title granted to the
Appellants, the order of injunction as a consequential Order was
rightly granted. He cited the case of OKOYA v SANTILI (1990) ALL
NLR 250 at 280-281 and other cases. Further, counsel submitted that
the order of perpetual injunction was in tandem with the legal
principles in cases where title has been granted, and where there
is evidence that the Respondents have been putting tenants on the
land and selling same. Responding, counsel for the Respondents
posited that the order of injunction granted by the trial court was
unjust, in that the court had held that grantees of land under
Customary Law enjoy their interest in the land in perpetuity
subject to good behaviour, and the interest has now in practice
been regarded as practically indefeasible. He contended further
that the order of injunction granted by the trial court, was in
conflict with the finding that grantees under customary tenor enjoy
the interest in perpetuity. He cited the case of JOSIAH AGHEHEN v
MAKUKA WAGHOREGHOR (1974) 1 SC, and urged the Court to endorse the
decision of the Court of Appeal.
Court’s Judgement and Rationale
Deciding the first issue, the Supreme Court referred to a book
by Fidelis Nwadialo titled “Civil Procedure in Nigeria”, second
edition p. 147, where the learned author reckoned with a pattern
which evolved by practice on the form a Statement of Claim should
take. A Statement of Claim was described as composing of three
parts, namely – (i) The introductory averments; (ii) The body of
the statement; and (iii) The prayer for relief. The Supreme Court
held that, without the relief portion in a pleading, the pleading
properly so called is incomplete, and to say a claim for title to
land is defeated merely because the location of the land is
inserted only in the relief section of the Statement of Claim,
amounts to stretching the evolved patterns of pleading to
absurdity.
However, the court held that the easiest way to identify the
land in dispute is by filing a survey plan, and since no survey
plan was filed, the identity of the land will depend on pleadings
and evidence. Although, the Appellants led evidence in proof of
their averments in the Statement of Claim, the said averments fall
short of what is required to prove the identity of land. The
directions – “Southern part, Northern part, left hand side and
right hand side stated in the Statement of Claim, cannot be
determined without a fixed point from which the direction can be
ascertained, and the right or left side depends on the cardinal
point the observer is facing.
The court held that the Claimants have a duty to identify the
existing boundaries of the land, and where they fail to do so, the
court has no power to demarcate one for them. The court cited on
AWERE v LASOJU (1975) NWLR 29 at 82 and held that natural marks
such as road, river, stream or a tree can constitute good boundary
marks, but none was pleaded in this case. Further, the court found
that Exhibit A, the previous decision relating to an arbitration in
respect of the land, cannot be relied on by the Appellants, as same
does not bind the 5th Respondent, who was not a party to the said
arbitration. The Supreme Court concluded that the Appellants failed
to establish the identity and boundaries of the land to which they
claim a declaration of title, and the evidence adduced before the
trial court did not ground a declaration of title in their
favour.
With respect to the second issue, the Supreme Court held that
since the Appellants’ claim for declaration of title failed because
the Appellants were unable to establish the identity and/or
boundaries of the land, there was no defined area of land to which
an order of perpetual injunction could be tied. Also, the court
found that the Appellants had not established a right, legal or
equitable, for which protection could be granted.
Appeal Dismissed.
Representation
Olumide Fidelis Akinbinu, Esq. with Femi Sylvester Akinbinu Esq.
for the Appellants.
Adewale Adegoke Esq. for the Respondents.
Reported by Optimum Publishers Limited, Publishers of the
Nigerian Monthly Law Reports (NMLR)(An Affiliate of Babalakin &
Co.)
Etomi Emerges as Chairman of Stock Exchange Review Panel
The Nigerian Stock Exchange has announced the inauguration of a
five-man Claims Review Panel, in preparation for the Exchange’s
imminent demutualisation.
In a Notice made by the NSE, it stated that the panel was
constituted pursuant to the provisions of the Demutualisation of
the Nigerian Stock Exchange Act 2018.
Members of the Panel who were inaugurated on December 21, 2020,
according to the Notice, are Mr. George Etomi (Chairman); Mr. Seni
Adio, SAN; Mr. Abatcha Bulama; Dr. Paul Anababa, SAN; and Prince
Aghatise Erediauwa. The Exchange said the panelists are
“individuals with the required expertise and extensive track
records of integrity, excellence, and achievements in their
respective fields of specialisation”.
On functions of the Panel, the Notice reads, “The Panel serves
as an independent alternative dispute resolution mechanism, for the
review and determination of Claims made by individuals or entities
in respect of any assertion of rights in the shares of the
demutualised Exchange, that is, Nigerian Exchange Group Plc
(“HoldCo”)”.
In addition, the Panel will perform an adjudicatory role by
acting in an appellate capacity for dissatisfied claimants who
object to any decision of the National Council of the Exchange, on
a claim pre-demutualisation, or the Board of Directors of the
HoldCo after the demutualisation process.
“The Panel will sit in an appellate capacity and review Claims
from Claimants who are dissatisfied with any decision of the
National Council of the Exchange on a Claim pre-demutualisation, or
the Board of Directors of the HoldCo, post-demutualisation of the
Exchange”, the Notice further reads.
Etomi is the Founder and Principal Partner of George Etomi &
Partners, a full-service commercial law firm. He is a also Director
of the Eko Electricity Distribution Company Limited.
Adio is the Managing Partner of Copley Partners and Director at
O’dua Group; while Bulama, a one-time Senior Manager at the SEC, is
a Council Member of the Chartered Institute of Bankers of Nigeria
(CIBN).
Dr. Ananaba is the Principal Partner at Paul C Ananaba & Co.,
Prince Erediauwa, a Lawyer who was General Manager at the NSE, and
retired December 8, 2020, from the Nigeria Deposit Insurance
Corporation (NDIC), where he was Executive Director (Operations),
after serving two five-year terms.
Otunba Abimbola Ogunbanjo, President of the Nigerian Stock
Exchange, said he “expected members of the Panel to discharge their
responsibilities without any fear or favour in an objective and
dispassionate manner, being guided by principles of fair hearing,
equity and natural justice”. He expressed optimism that the Panel
would diligently carry out its functions and responsibilities under
the Act, and that each member would bring to bear their respective
experience and expertise to enrich deliberations and decisions.
In the Supreme Court of
Nigeria
Holden at Abuja
On Friday, the 5th day of June, 2020
Before Their Lordships
Nwali Sylvester Ngwuta
Olukayode Ariwoola
John Inyang Okoro
Amina Adamu Augie
Uwani Musa Abba Aji
Justices, Supreme Court
SC.662/2015
Between
- Mr. Saibu Adekunjo
- Mr. Jimoh Adekunjo
- Mr. Taiwo Odunlami
- Mr. Tajudeen Adekunjo
- Mr. Akimu M. Adeoye Appellants
And
- Chief Salami Hussain
- Saibu Ilo
- Mustapha Ganiyu Ajogbede
- Peter Babatunde
- Hussain Amore Respondents
(Lead Judgement delivered by Honourable Nwali Sylvester Ngwuta,
JSC)
Facts
The Appellants commenced an action at the High Court of Ogun
State against the Respondents claiming inter alia, a declaration
that they are entitled to the Statutory Right of Occupancy in
respect of a parcel of land lying and situate at Ilemu/Ifako
village via Ado-Odo, Ogun State. The Appellants described the land
as being bound at the southern part by Ifio land, northern part by
Ifighe farmland, left hand side by Idomiorin farmland and on the
right hand side by Odu, Ati-Kekure Idojuna farmland. The Appellants
relied on a previous decision from an arbitration relating to the
land, Exhibit A.
The Respondents denied the Appellants’ claim, in their defence.
In addition, the 4th Respondent counter-claimed for declaration of
Customary/Statutory Right of Occupancy in respect of the parcel of
land, which he described as lying on Alapati Magban Road via
Ado-Odo, Ota Local Government Area of Ogun State. He described the
land as being bound on the first side by Olayiwola family, second
side by Amore family, third side by Ifio family and fourth side by
Idobarun family. Also, the 5th Respondent filed a Counter-claim and
sought a declaration that his family is entitled to the
Customary/Statutory Right of Occupancy over the parcel of land
lying at Alapati Magban Road via Ado-Odo/Ota Local Government Area
of Ogun State. He described the land to be bound on the first side
by Ijigbe family, second side by Idamarien, third side by Ifio
family and fourth side by Ore River.
At the conclusion of trial, the court held that the Appellants
were entitled to the Statutory Right of Occupancy in respect of the
land. The court however, refused the Appellants’ prayer for
forfeiture of the Respondents’ customary tenancy, but granted an
order of perpetual injunction against them. Dissatisfied with the
decision of the trial court, the Respondents successfully appealed
to the Court of Appeal, which informed the Appellants’ appeal to
the Supreme Court.
Issues for Determination
The following were the issues considered by the Apex Court for
determination of the appeal –
1. Whether by the pleading and evidence adduced, the Appellants
established the identity of the land in dispute.
2. Whether in view of the applicable laws, the Court of Appeal
was in error to have set aside the Order of Injunction made by the
trial court in favour of the Appellants.
Arguments
On the first issue, counsel for the Appellants argued that the
Court of Appeal was wrong when it held that the description of the
land in dispute contained in the relief was insufficient to
identify the land, as the relief was different from the pleading.
Counsel stated that the omission of the name of the land in dispute
from the body of the Statement of Claim and the incorporation of
same in the relief may have been inelegant, but did not detract
from the need to do substantial justice. He also contended that the
relief is part of the pleading, and the Respondents joined issues
with the Appellants on the location of the land in dispute. He
relied on the case of ALHAJI SAFIANU AMINU & ORS. v ISIAKA HASSAN &
ORS. (2014) 1 SCNJ Page 163 at 181. He submitted further that given
the state of pleadings, the Respondents cannot be presumed to be in
the dark as to the identity of the land in dispute. Countering the
submission of the Appellant, counsel for the Respondents reiterated
the decision of the Court of Appeal that the identity of the land
in dispute was in issue, and same was not established. He stated
that the Court of Appeal considered Exhibit A, which the trial
court relied on for the identity of the land, and concluded that
same was not helpful, as the 5th Respondent who was the overlord of
the other Respondents was not a party to the arbitration. Counsel
argued that since the identity of the land in dispute could not be
settled and the Appellants failed to file a Survey Plan, the Court
of Appeal was right to hold that the identity of the land was not
established.
Regarding the second issue, counsel for the Appellants argued
that, in view of the Declaration of Title granted to the
Appellants, the order of injunction as a consequential Order was
rightly granted. He cited the case of OKOYA v SANTILI (1990) ALL
NLR 250 at 280-281 and other cases. Further, counsel submitted that
the order of perpetual injunction was in tandem with the legal
principles in cases where title has been granted, and where there
is evidence that the Respondents have been putting tenants on the
land and selling same. Responding, counsel for the Respondents
posited that the order of injunction granted by the trial court was
unjust, in that the court had held that grantees of land under
Customary Law enjoy their interest in the land in perpetuity
subject to good behaviour, and the interest has now in practice
been regarded as practically indefeasible. He contended further
that the order of injunction granted by the trial court, was in
conflict with the finding that grantees under customary tenor enjoy
the interest in perpetuity. He cited the case of JOSIAH AGHEHEN v
MAKUKA WAGHOREGHOR (1974) 1 SC, and urged the Court to endorse the
decision of the Court of Appeal.
Court’s Judgement and Rationale
Deciding the first issue, the Supreme Court referred to a book
by Fidelis Nwadialo titled “Civil Procedure in Nigeria”, second
edition p. 147, where the learned author reckoned with a pattern
which evolved by practice on the form a Statement of Claim should
take. A Statement of Claim was described as composing of three
parts, namely – (i) The introductory averments; (ii) The body of
the statement; and (iii) The prayer for relief. The Supreme Court
held that, without the relief portion in a pleading, the pleading
properly so called is incomplete, and to say a claim for title to
land is defeated merely because the location of the land is
inserted only in the relief section of the Statement of Claim,
amounts to stretching the evolved patterns of pleading to
absurdity.
However, the court held that the easiest way to identify the
land in dispute is by filing a survey plan, and since no survey
plan was filed, the identity of the land will depend on pleadings
and evidence. Although, the Appellants led evidence in proof of
their averments in the Statement of Claim, the said averments fall
short of what is required to prove the identity of land. The
directions – “Southern part, Northern part, left hand side and
right hand side stated in the Statement of Claim, cannot be
determined without a fixed point from which the direction can be
ascertained, and the right or left side depends on the cardinal
point the observer is facing.
The court held that the Claimants have a duty to identify the
existing boundaries of the land, and where they fail to do so, the
court has no power to demarcate one for them. The court cited on
AWERE v LASOJU (1975) NWLR 29 at 82 and held that natural marks
such as road, river, stream or a tree can constitute good boundary
marks, but none was pleaded in this case. Further, the court found
that Exhibit A, the previous decision relating to an arbitration in
respect of the land, cannot be relied on by the Appellants, as same
does not bind the 5th Respondent, who was not a party to the said
arbitration. The Supreme Court concluded that the Appellants failed
to establish the identity and boundaries of the land to which they
claim a declaration of title, and the evidence adduced before the
trial court did not ground a declaration of title in their
favour.
With respect to the second issue, the Supreme Court held that
since the Appellants’ claim for declaration of title failed because
the Appellants were unable to establish the identity and/or
boundaries of the land, there was no defined area of land to which
an order of perpetual injunction could be tied. Also, the court
found that the Appellants had not established a right, legal or
equitable, for which protection could be granted.
Appeal Dismissed.
Representation
Olumide Fidelis Akinbinu, Esq. with Femi Sylvester Akinbinu Esq.
for the Appellants.
Adewale Adegoke Esq. for the Respondents.
Reported by Optimum Publishers Limited, Publishers of the
Nigerian Monthly Law Reports (NMLR)(An Affiliate of Babalakin &
Co.)
Etomi Emerges as Chairman of Stock Exchange Review Panel
The Nigerian Stock Exchange has announced the inauguration of a
five-man Claims Review Panel, in preparation for the Exchange’s
imminent demutualisation.
In a Notice made by the NSE, it stated that the panel was
constituted pursuant to the provisions of the Demutualisation of
the Nigerian Stock Exchange Act 2018.
Members of the Panel who were inaugurated on December 21, 2020,
according to the Notice, are Mr. George Etomi (Chairman); Mr. Seni
Adio, SAN; Mr. Abatcha Bulama; Dr. Paul Anababa, SAN; and Prince
Aghatise Erediauwa. The Exchange said the panelists are
“individuals with the required expertise and extensive track
records of integrity, excellence, and achievements in their
respective fields of specialisation”.
On functions of the Panel, the Notice reads, “The Panel serves
as an independent alternative dispute resolution mechanism, for the
review and determination of Claims made by individuals or entities
in respect of any assertion of rights in the shares of the
demutualised Exchange, that is, Nigerian Exchange Group Plc
(“HoldCo”)”.
In addition, the Panel will perform an adjudicatory role by
acting in an appellate capacity for dissatisfied claimants who
object to any decision of the National Council of the Exchange, on
a claim pre-demutualisation, or the Board of Directors of the
HoldCo after the demutualisation process.
“The Panel will sit in an appellate capacity and review Claims
from Claimants who are dissatisfied with any decision of the
National Council of the Exchange on a Claim pre-demutualisation, or
the Board of Directors of the HoldCo, post-demutualisation of the
Exchange”, the Notice further reads.
Etomi is the Founder and Principal Partner of George Etomi &
Partners, a full-service commercial law firm. He is a also Director
of the Eko Electricity Distribution Company Limited.
Adio is the Managing Partner of Copley Partners and Director at
O’dua Group; while Bulama, a one-time Senior Manager at the SEC, is
a Council Member of the Chartered Institute of Bankers of Nigeria
(CIBN).
Dr. Ananaba is the Principal Partner at Paul C Ananaba & Co.,
Prince Erediauwa, a Lawyer who was General Manager at the NSE, and
retired December 8, 2020, from the Nigeria Deposit Insurance
Corporation (NDIC), where he was Executive Director (Operations),
after serving two five-year terms.
Otunba Abimbola Ogunbanjo, President of the Nigerian Stock
Exchange, said he “expected members of the Panel to discharge their
responsibilities without any fear or favour in an objective and
dispassionate manner, being guided by principles of fair hearing,
equity and natural justice”. He expressed optimism that the Panel
would diligently carry out its functions and responsibilities under
the Act, and that each member would bring to bear their respective
experience and expertise to enrich deliberations and decisions.