CaseLaw
Olutinrin V. Agaka (1998) CLR 6(B) (CA)
Brief
Facts
Then the respondent in 1990 filed another action challenging the validity of an order made by the Upper Area Court Lokoja on the ground that one of the members was likely to be biased. The high Court dismissed the action on 26/1/93. The respondents appealed to this court against the decision. The appeal was not diligently prosecuted and it was dismissed by this court the provisions of Order 6 Rule 10 of the Rules of the Court.
Then the respondent in 1990 filed another action challenging the validity of an order made by the Upper Area Court Lokoja on the ground that one of the members was likely to be biased. The high Court dismissed the action on 26/1/93. The respondents appealed to this court against the decision. The appeal was not diligently prosecuted and it was dismissed by this court the provisions of Order 6 Rule 10 of the Rules of the Court.
The appellant filed a motion before the Supreme Court seeking for an extension of time within which to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, this motion was never pursued.
Then in September 1995, the appellant filed a motion before the Ilorin upper Area Court seeking for an order directing the respondents to give up possession. The application was fully argued and it was granted on 5/9/95.
Pursuant to this, a formal writ of possession of the property was issued to the appellant on 12/9/95.
A motion for stay of the execution of the ruling of 5/9/95 was filed by the respondents but was never moved. Also an appeal against the same ruling was filed before the High Court, but it was never pursued.
On the 21st of September 1995, the present respondents as plaintiff filed another suit before the High Court seeking for many declarations and damages against the appellant to restore the building demolished on 18/9/95.
As I mentioned earlier the respondents filed a fresh suit before the High Court seeking for various declarations on 21/9/95 and the same time filed a motion seeking for an order to restore the building demolished on 21/9/95. The motion was also dated 21/9/95.
The appellant also filed a motion seeking for an order dismissing the suit in-limine on the ground that it was an abuse of the process of the court. The learned trial court judge heard arguments on the two motions, but somehow he treated the appellant's motion as a preliminary objection to the new suit filed by the respondents. He gave a reserved ruling on the 18/3/96 dismissing the application.
Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal and the respondents also cross-appealed to the court of Appeal.