n
CaseLaw
The appellants were the defendants in the High Court of Lagos State and the respondents the plaintiffs to 13 the suit claiming:
The claim was later amended (see page 83) to read as follows:
After hearing evidence and addresses of counsel, the learned trial Judge, (Desalu, J.) dismissed all the three arms of the claim in their entirety.
The facts in brief, are as follows: the land in dispute formerly formed part of the land owned by one Aige, a Yoruba man and native of or an indigene of Ikorodu, Lagos State under customary law or native law and custom. On his death intestate, the property devolved on his children as family property. At some time later, the family decided to partition the family property at Aige family and allotted the land in dispute to one of the descendants of Aige by name Chief T.K. Dada. After his death, the family conveyed by deed of grant the said parcel of land to:
All of Ikorodu then in Western Nigeria now in Lagos State. They were the children and grandchildren of Chief T. K. Dada. The Deed of grant is in evidence as Exhibit A. The land in dispute was subsequently sold and conveyed B by Orefela Dada, Idowu Folorunsho Dada and Jonathan Ayodele Dada, all descendants of Chief T.K. Dada to Chief Lamidi Dawodu, the appellant now deceased by Exhibit E, a Deed of Conveyance in evidence.
The learned trial Judge found that there was evidence (from the plaintiffs) that there were other children and grandchildren of Chief T. K. Dada who were not mentioned in Exhibit A. He therefore found that those other children and grandchildren acquired no interest in the land granted. The learned trial Judge observed that there was no averment in the statement of claim that the Aige family ever granted or allotted the land in dispute delineated on Exhibit A to Chief T.A. Dada.
The plaintiffs sued in a representative capacity for themselves and on behalf of the entire members of Oturadewun Tefojukan, Kutimoju Dada branch of Aige family.
The learned trial Judge held that there was no evidence of relationship of the 2nd and 3rd plaintiff with Chief T.K. Dada. He found that the 1st plaintiff is the son of one Efuneye, one of the grantees.
The plaintiffs/respondents predicated their claim on Exhibit A and from the content of Exhibit A, the parcel of land granted was to the named grantees. Their heirs and assigns in fee simple. It was not to the grantees for themselves and the entire members of Chief T.K. Dada's branch of Aige family. The learned trial Judge therefore dismissed the claim. The plaintiffs then appealed to the Court of Appeal and succeeded.
The main issue raised for determination is one of locus standi. Have the...
CaseLaw
The Plaintiff was the owner of a 72 foot long Local/Passenger boat named "M.V Ololo." The 1st Defendant owned a 40m long dumb barge named "NOAC 502." While the 2nd Defendant owned a Tugboat named “M.V Obuta." The 2nd Defendant was a sub-contractor of the 1st Defendant at the material time of the accident herein. In the night of 16/10/82 the Plaintiff’s "M.V Ololo" was sailing from Nembe to Port Harcourt when it had a collision with "NAOC 502" in motion. The "NAOC 502" was sailing in opposite direction when the accident occurred. As a result of the accident Plaintiff’s "M.V. Ololo" was ship wrecked. The plaintiff thereafter sued the Defendants
The plaintiff testified on his own behalf and did not call any witness. The 1st defendant called one witness while the 2nd defender called two witnesses.
The trial Judge held that the 2nd defendant was an independent contractor and was not under the control of the defendant and based on that the 1st defendant cannot be held liable for the tort committed by the 2nd defendant. He dismissed the case against the 1st defendant but gave Judgment in favour of the plaintiff against the 2nd defendant for the sum of N67,484.16.
2nd defendant then appealed to the Court of Appeal which unanimously dismissed the appeal against the 1st defendant but allowed his appeal against the plaintiff in part.
2nd defendant then appealed to the Court of Appeal which unanimously dismissed the appeal against the 1st defendant but allowed his appeal against the plaintiff in part.
Plaintiff was found to be contributorily negligent to the tune of 75% in causing the accident. The damages awarded by the trial Court was reduced to N55,297.50 because certain items of claim were not allowed and the 2nd defendant was held liable to the plaintiff to the tune of N13,824.38 being 25% of N55,297.50,