CaseLaw
Alafia & Ors V. Gbode Ventures Nigeria Limited & Ors (2016) CLR 1 (g) (SC).
Judgement delivered on January, 29th 2016
Brief
Facts
On the 28th of November, 1944 Pa Suberu Adedeji Alafia died intestate and left behind several properties including No.45 Dosunmu Street, Lagos State. These properties devolved on the seven branches of his family, amongst whom are the present 3rd and 4th respondents and 1st, 3rd and 4th appellants as family properties and each had its own share. Each child or descendant of late Pa Suberu Alafia has his or her separate tittle, interest, right, possession, as a result of partition of the properties. However, the 1st – 6th appellants upon discovery who are from different branches of the late Patriarch family have no common interest, title, possession or otherwise after partitioning.
In the course of time, the representatives of the family requested the 3rd respondent look for a suitable developer to develop No.45 Dosunmu Street, Lagos in which agreement was reached with the 1st and 2nd respondent after several developers were approached and considered by the 3rd respondent herein.
The appellant herein filed an ex-parte motion for several orders, including an order of interim injunction along with the writ of summons and statement of claim. Arguments were taken and on the same day learned trial judge granted the orders sought including an order of injunction restraining all the respondents herein whether by themselves or any other person, howsoever from demolishing, constructing and/or further trespassing on the property known as 45, Dosunmu Street, Lagos, pending the hearing and the determination of the motion on notice already filed.
The learned trial judge also gave judgment in favour of the appellants and dismissed the counter-claim of the respondents. The respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal who upturned the judgment of the trial court in relation to both rulings respectively by setting it aside.
Also, the original suit filed by the appellants was incompetent and same was struck out.
Dissatisfied, the appellants appealed to the Apex Court.