CaseLaw
Oduola V. Nabhan (1981) CLR 5(a) (SC)
Judgement delivered on Nabhan (1981) CLR 5(a) (SC)
Brief
Facts
The plaintiffs, who were succeeded in interest on appeal by the respondents, on behalf of the Ibikunle family sued the defendants, who claimed to derive title from the Olubadan-in- Council, for a declaration of title to the disputed land and recovery of possession. It appeared from the pleadings of the parties and the oral testimonies of the witnesses of the plaintiff that the land in dispute formed the sub¬ject matter of an earlier proceedings between the Ibikunle family and the Olubadan-in-Council. The court in that case, Suit No. 1/120/49, Coram Sir Adetokunbo Ademola, CJ (as he then was) had found that the Ibikunle family had effectively and finally given out the land in dispute to the Olubadan-in-Council; that in effect no residue of the property or title thereto resided in the Ibikunle family and that any person who derived title from the Olubadan-in-Council by speed lease (which were issued with the consent of the family as far back as 1919) took the property in perpetuity without payment of rent. The trial court had after these findings non¬-suited the Ibikunle family in respect of the areas covered by speed leases and other designated areas, and these findings remained effectual as they were not appealed against.
Inspite of the subsisting findings, the trial court in the instant case on appeal gave judgment to the plaintiffs, the defendants not having been available to par¬ticipate in the proceedings. The appellants who were at all material times in pos¬session of the land in dispute and who were not joined at the trial court sought and obtained leave of the Western State Court of Appeal to appeal to that court. Be¬fore the appeal could be heard, the Western State Court of Appeal was abolished and the appeal by virtue of a constitutional provision became pending before the newly created Federal Court of Appeal which by majority dismissed the appeal. One of the grounds raised before the Court of Appeal was that the judgment was against the weight of evidence but the court held that since the appellants had prof¬fered no evidence at the trial, that ground was not open to them on the authority of Odufunade vs. Rossek and Mobil Oil (Nig.) Ltd. vs. Abolade Coker.
On further appeal to the Supreme Court it was contended for the appellants that the trial court was wrong to have given judgment to the plaintiffs on the face of the conclusive findings of Suit No. 1/120/49 adverse to their claims; that the ap¬pellants being in possession of the premises ought necessarily to have been joined before the issues could be finally and effectually determined and that the judgment of the trial court was against the weight of evidence. It was submitted that the Court of Appeal ought to have entertained this last ground.
Issues
Whether a plaintiff who failed in a previous suit to obtain title against a...