CaseLaw
Olaiya v. Olaiya (2002) CLR 5(k) (SC)
Judgement delivered on May 10th 2002
Brief
Facts
The Plaintiff, Mrs. Cornelia Titilola Olaiya, married the deceased, Solomon Kayode on the 28th December J963 under the Marriage Act in the District of lslington, U.K. Following the marriage, it would appear that they established their matrimonial home in London before proceeding to Nigeria. It does appear that in Nigeria, they Jived together in Kano at 100 Lamido Crescent, and in Lagos at 2 Ogabi Street. They lived together at the above address until the husband died on the 24/2/81 in that address. There was no biological child between them during the marriage. But the Plaintiff claimed that they adopted two children, namely Emmanuel Olabunmi Olaiya, and Sarah Olufunmilayo Olaiya. The third child Remilekun Ajayi claimed by the Defendant to be the only child of his brother, was first seen by the Plaintiff at the grave said during the burial ceremony of her husband.
The Plaintiff's husband was an electrical engineer, and in furtherance of his business, he founded and operated a company, Vallis Electrical Company, and was the substantial owner of the company. The deceased also left the following properties when he died: A twin duplex at No. 2 Bisi Ogabi Street, Ikeja; 3 landed property at Alagba Village, Agege; 2 Bungalows at Lamido Crescent, Kano; 3 uncompleted buildings in Kano- one at Duduyun Quarters and 2 uncompleted buildings at Narbawa Quarters Kano; N100,000 fixed deposit in U.B.A. Ikeja; N50,000 fixed deposit in U.B.A. Kano. Following the death of Plaintiff's husband, Solomon Kayode Olaiya, the Defendants admitted that they took over the properties of the late Solomon Kayode Olaiya, including three Mercedes-Benz cars. The Plaintiff allegation that the Defendants without commuting with her, then continued to manage all the properties including the electrical company. All they did with regard to the properties in Lagos was first without obtaining Letters of Administration. In respect of the properties in Kano, it was claimed that Letters of Administration were obtained in Kano to administer the properties there. In any event, it is upon those facts that the trial Court found in favour of the Plaintiff and made the several orders, I have earlier reproduced in this judgment. Being dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the Appellant obtained the leave of the Court below, to appeal against the judgement as an interested party. The Appellant was there described as Remilekun (otherwise known as Oluremi) an infant by Miss Ronke Funso her next friend. Pursuant to the order of the Court below, briefs of argument were subsequently filed and exchanged. After due consideration of the argument proffered before that Court, the Court below dismissed the appeal. It would appear that the reason given for dismissing the appeal was because the Court considered that the issues formulated for the Appellant were based upon incompetent grounds of appeal. The Court below apparently took the view that the issues raised in the grounds of appeal are new and they were not canvassed at the trial. And as the Appellant failed to seek and obtain the leave of the court, the grounds of appeal so filed cannot be agitated in that Court. By so holding, the Court below upheld the preliminary objection of the Respondents to the said grounds of appeal. As the Appellant was not satisfied with the judgement of the Court below, a further appeal was filed to this Court.