n Compulaw - 1st Indigenous Digital Law Library
Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Eyo Eta V. Dazie (2013) CLR 3(j) (SC)

Judgement delivered on 1st March, 2013

Brief

  • Counsel (role of)
  • Will
  • Finding of fact
  • Amended statement of defence

Facts

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Calabar, delivered on 23rd November, 1999. In the said judgment, the Court below dismissed the appellants' appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Cross River State sitting at Calabar in which the trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the appellants as plaintiffs.

In the High Court, the appellants then plaintiffs had claimed against the respondent (then defendant) as follows:

  • 1
    A declaration that the pretended Will of the deceased is invalid
  • 2
    An order setting aside the pretended will of the deceased for wants of due execution and form and as being inconsistent and unconscionable and failing totally of its intention.
  • 3
    An injunction restraining the defendant from executing the said pretended will.

At the trial in the High Court each side called three witnesses and rested its case. The main addresses of learned Counsel for the parties were concluded on 29th October, 1997. On the application of learned Counsel for the defendant (now respondent), the case was adjourned to the next day 30/10/97 for rejoinder (see page 68 of the record.)

In his rejoinder on points of law on 30/10/97, learned Counsel for the defendant (now respondent) realized that he did not expressly deny paragraph 23 of the statement of claim nor did he plead due execution of the Will In his Statement of Defence, Learned Counsel for the respondent then made an oral application to amend the Statement of Defence in line with the evidence on record by adding that "the Will was du y executed in accordance with the law" to paragraph 33 of the Statement of Defence. Learned Counsel for the appellant opposed the oral application, arguing that there should be a formal application to enable the appellants react. He said that the application at the stage it was made would bring untold hardship to the appellants.

The learned trial Judge did not rule on the application but rather adjourned the case with the consent of both Counsels to 8th December, 1997 for judgment. (See page 70 of the record.)

In the judgment eventually delivered on the 28th day of January 1998, the learned trial judge, after exhaustive review of the case concluded thus:

  • “Consequently, It is my considered opinion that the action be and is hereby dismissed for 'want of merit”

    • sss Earlier in the judgment, the learned trial Judge had granted the application for amendment thus:

    • "I do not think that the application ought to have formal as proposed by teamed Counsel for the plaintiffs. The facts are already before the Court. I am however of the opinion that the defendant be made to pay the cost of the application which is granted as prayed with N20,000.00 costs to the plaintiffs.”(See pages 98-99 of the record.)

      • Aggrieved by the judgment the plaintiffs (now appellants) challenged same at the Court of Appeal, Calabar Division, The lower Court found no merit in the appeal and accordingly dismissed it. The appellants further appealed to this Court

Issues

  • 1
    Was it right for the Court below to affirm the decision of the trial Court...

Read More