Compulaw - 1st Indigenous Digital Law Library

Brief

Expert witness – Meaning of
Expert – Meaning of
Address of Counsel – Meaning of
Non Compliance with Electoral Act
Electronic documents and Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011
Public documents not properly certified
Pre hearing notice in Election Petitions
Cross examination – Admissibility of evidence obtained during
Election petition - When will the issue of substantial compliance be considered in
- Pleadings - Averment in
Concurrent finding of fact
Incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
Ratio decidendi and Obiter dictum
Court Processes and Pleadings – Amendments of
Technicalities – Appellate court attitude to
Paragraph 16(1) and (2) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended)
Paragraph 18(4) and (5) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act
Section 68 of Evidence Act 2011.
Section 258(1), the Evidence Act 2011
Section 84(1) of the Evidence Act 2011
Section 84 of the Evidence Act, 2011
Section 104 of the Evidence Act 2011
Section 139(1) of the Electoral Act, 2010
Section 15(4) and (5) of the Interpretation Act
Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act
Section 318 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended)
Order 2 Rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules

Facts

It is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Akure Division delivered on the 2nd of April, 2015. In the said judgment of the Court below the judgment of the trial Tribunal that sat in Osun State, delivered on 6th February, 2015 was affirmed.

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.

Omisore & Anor V. Aregbesola & Ors (2015) CLR 5(L) (SC)

Judgement delivered on May 27th 2015

Brief

Facts

Issues