Alhaji Raimi Akanji Yusuf & Ors V. Alhaji Akindipe & Ors. (2000)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

OGWUEGBU, J.S.C

In the High Court of Lagos State, the plaintiffs claimed from the defendants as follows:

“the sum of N10,000.00 being general damages suffered by the plaintiffs and their members when the defendants, through their agents and/or servants on the 8th February, 1987 and on subsequent days, without any lawful authority or consent of the plaintiffs, broke into the plaintiff’s Mosques at No. B5/111, Ahmadiya Road, Agege (A Lis Pendens in Suit Nos. M.137/84 and CA/L/247/86), and dispersed the plaintiffs and their members with tear gas and batton (sic) during worship and barricade (sic) the entrance with contigents of armed policemen to prevent the plaintiffs and their members from using the said Mosques whereof the plaintiffs claim further the following orders:

1. An order that the action of the defendants is a contempt of the court proceedings in Suit Nos. M/137/84 and CA/L/247/86.
2. An order that the defendants do forthwith remove Police contingents posted at the said Mosques or Mosques belonging to the plaintiffs.
3. An injunction restraining the defendants, their agents and/or servants from ever interfering in the private disputes over the ownership of the Mosques (i) at No. B5/111, Ahmadiya Road, Agege, and (ii) No. 41. Shitta Street. Dopemu. Agege, Lagos State.”

The first three defendants were the original defendants in the suit. The 4th to 8th defendants applied to the trial court to be joined as co-defendants. An order was made accordingly. Thereafter, the 4th – 8th defendants brought an application before Onalaja. J. (as he then was) praying the court for an order dismissing the action filed by the plaintiffs in that:

“(i) The plaintiffs have not shown on the writ of summons, statement of claim etc. that they have locus standi to institute this action.

(ii) The writ of summons, statement of claim and reply disclose no reasonable cause of action.”

In a reserved ruling, after hearing arguments of counsel, the learned trial Judge dismissed the application. The 4th – 8th defendants were dissatisfied with the ruling and appeal to the Court of Appeal. Lagos Division. The appeal was dismissed by Ayoola and Kalgo. JJ.C.A (as they then were). Uwaifo, JCA (as he then was) dissented. The 4th – 8th defendants have further appealed to this court. I will hereinafter refer to them as ‘Appellants’, the plaintiffs as 1st set of respondents and the first three plaintiffs as the 2nd set of respondents.

From the seven grounds of appeal filed, the appellants formulated the following issues for our determination:

“(a) Whether the action of the 1st group of respondents is an attempt to re-open or to raise issues (or some of them) that have been decided against the said respondents by this Honourable court in Suit No. SC.64/1982 between Y.P.O. Shodeinde v. The Registered Trustees of the Ahmadiyya Movement-In-Islam

(b). If the answer to ‘a’ is in the affirmative, does the action not constitute all abuse of process

(c). Whether having regard to the materials placed before the High Court which also formed part of the record before the Court of Appeal, those courts were obliged to investigate (within the confines of the materials before them). whether or not their processes were being abused

(d). Should the 1st group of respondents not have brought separate actions since they were claiming special damages

(e). Was the Court of Appeal correct in holding that the claim of the 1st group of respondents was for trespass simpliciter and not an action for title

(f). Was the Court of Appeal correct when it held that the 1st group of respondents had locus standi to institute and maintain the action