Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Falaye V. Otapo (1995) CLR 3 (L) (SC)

Brief

  • Declaration of title to Land,
  • Estoppel per rem Judicatam and issue estoppel,
  • Survey plan,
  • Proof of title,
  • Non suit: whether court can order without specific Jurisdiction under statute to do so.

Facts

Respondents (as representatives) sued the appellants (as representatives) over a parcel of land.

  • "1.
    that there existed a woman named Talabi;
  • 2.
    that the plaintiffs through their mother Talabi are related to the defendants;
  • 3.
    that in Suit No IF/OT.12/81 (Exhibit A), the present plaintiffs have put their maternal relationship with Eleidi Atala (defendants family) in issue although they never mentioned the name of their maternal ancestor Talabi;
  • 4.
    that the plaintiffs are by virtue of Exhibit A holding on to possession as customary tenants of the defendants through their privy in title Kole and not that they have any exclusive possession which may warrant in title Kole and not that they have any exclusive possession which may warrant the presumption of ownership;
  • 5.
    that the 4th P.W admitted that the land in dispute is the same as the land in dispute in Exhibit A in other words the subject matter of the present action is the same as that in Exhibit A;
  • 6.
    that the parties in the present action are the same as the parties in Exhibit A;
  • 7.
    that the plaintiffs are, therefore, bound by Exhibit A and cannot, therefore, relitigate any declaration of title on behalf of Talabi branch against the defendants;
  • 8.
    that the plaintiffs are in confusion as to the area of land they claim and therefore, they have not proved the identity of the land being claimed by them. On the strength of these findings the learned trial Judge dismissed plaintiffs claims

The plaintiffs being dissatisfied with the judgment appealed to the court of Appeal. The defendants also cross-appealed against the finding of the learned trial Judge that the plaintiffs were related to them maternally. That court reasoned that in the absence of a Survey Plan No AK/304B to which Exhibit A is attached it will be difficult to say with certainty that the subject matter litigated upon in Exhibit A is the same as the subject-matter in the present proceedings. The court, therefore allowed plaintiffs appeal in part, set aside the judgment of the trial court and entered an order of non-suit. The cross-appeal was dismissed. Being dissatisfied with the judgment of the court of Appeal both parties have against appealed to this court. The defendant after obtaining the leave of court appealed against the whole decision while the plaintiffs appealed against the order of non suit maintaining that judgment should have been entered in their favour in terms of their claims.

Both parties dissatisfied, appealed and cross-appealed to the Supreme Court. The respondents cross appeal related to the orders of non-suit and they contended that Judgment should have been entered in their favour in terms of their claims.