Chief Numogun Sam Adeyemi V. Emmanuel Opeyori (1976)
LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report
IDIGBE, JSC.
This appeal is from the judgment of the Western State Court of Appeal (Eso and Ogunkeye, JJ.A; Akinkugbe, J.A. dissenting) dismissing an appeal from the judgment of the High Court of the former Western State of Nigeria holden at Oshogbo whereby the appellants’ claims in Suit HIL/7/71 were struck out for want of jurisdiction.
The claims are for: “(1) declaration of title to that piece or parcel of farmland situate, lying and being at Odo-Omo, Esa-Oke, Ijesha North Division, bounded on one side by Obaloro’s farmland, on the second side by Oshikun’s farmland, on the third side by Esa-Odo’s people’s farmland and on the fourth side by Orisaji’s farmland; (2) £300 as damages for wrongful trespass committed by the defendant who has been wrongfully entering the said farmland and with his agents and/or servants have been wrongfully reaping crops from the said farmland since 1962; and
(3) injunction restraining the defendant, his servants and/or agents from “trespassing on the said farmland”. Pleadings were delivered and exchanged on both sides. The case came up for hearing on 16th November 1971 when the learned trial Judge recorded the following notes: “Parties present: Bola Ige for the plaintiff. Adelekun for the defendant.
Mr. Adelekun, counsel for the defendant now informs the court that his client, the defendant now admits paragraph 4 of the plaintiff’s Statement of Claim to the extent only that the land in dispute is Emila family land but denies that Chief Numogun had anything to do with the said land. In view of the foregoing admission by Mr. Adelekun, Court calls for argument from counsel for both sides as to whether it has original jurisdiction to try this case since on the face of the pleadings in the case the only issue to be tried is whether or not the plaintiffs are members of Emila family, an issue which appears to relate to family status.
Mr. Bola Ige argues for plaintiffs: He submits that the claim is for a declaration of the title to land. Plaintiff’s contention is that Emila family land is undivided and unpartitioned. Plaintiffs say they are members of Emila family, but that is not the main issue in dispute. It is only one of the things to be proved by plaintiffs to succeed in this action ………. Mr. Ige concedes it that the issue whether the plaintiffs are members of Emila family is a matter (sic) to family status. But he submits that the issue is only incidental in this case and not fundamental ………………. Mr. Adelekun counsel for the defendant informs the court at this stage that this earlier admission ………… comes with the admission of paragraph 3 of the PAGE| 3 plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim.
He says his client admits paragraph 3 of the plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim ……………………………………………………………… The sole issue is whether plaintiffs are members of Emila family. If a court so finds plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration of title to the land in dispute jointly with the defendant.
He says it is a matter relating to family status; refers to the Proviso to Section 9(1) High Court Law; says the issue is fundamental and not incidental. Submits the jurisdiction of the court is thereby ousted …………………………………………………………………….. Ruling reserved till 16th December 1971. (Sgd.) …………………………………………………. Judge 16/11/71”. The learned trial Judge delivered his ruling on 16th December 1971 and, as already stated, he struck out the claim for want of jurisdiction.
Parts of his ruling read: “……….. On the face of the plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim and the defendant’s defence coupled with the latter’s counsel’s (Mr. Adelekun’s) admissions before m
Other Citation: (1976) LCN/2238(SC)
