LawPavilion Online


Back

CHIEF E. A. ADEFEYISAN v. MADAM LATIFAT ODEGBESAN & ANOR

(2020) LPELR-49494(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Friday, the 28th day of February, 2020

CA/IB/50/2016


Before Their Lordships

JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

FOLASADE AYODEJI OJO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria


Between

CHIEF E. A. ADEFEYISAN - Appellant(s)

AND

1. MADAM LATIFAT ODEGBESAN
2. MR. WAHAB ODEGBESAN
(For and on behalf of Madam Kehinde Odubanjo& Family) - Respondent(s)


Other Citations

; ;


Summary

INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on Civil Procedure.

FACTS:
This is an appeal against the ruling of the High Court of Ogun State sitting in Ijebu-Ode.

The facts of the case are that by a writ of summons and statement of claim filed on 9th June, 2009 at the High Court, the Claimants (Respondents) claim for themselves and on behalf of Madam Kehinde Odubanjo family as follows:
"(a) A declaration that the Defendants, their agents, privies or servants are trespassers and continuing trespassers on the Claimants land situate and being at Idoro Village via Ijebu-Ode, Ogun State.
(b) The sum of (N200,000,000.00) Two Hundred Million Naira being special and general damages jointly and severally from the Defendants, their agents, servants and/or privies for acts of trespass and continuing trespass on the claimants land as aforesaid
(c) A perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, servants and or privies from committing further acts of trespass on the subject matter of this action.
(d) And for such further consequential order or other orders as will be necessary in this case to give effect to the Claimants' reliefs."

Pleadings were duly exchanged between the parties and the case was heard at the High Court. In a Judgment delivered on the 28th day of October, 2013, the High Court adjudged the defendants to be trespassers. The Court made an order of perpetual injunction against the Defendants and awarded a sum of N540,000.00 as general damages jointly and severally against all the defendants together with cost of N45,000.00 awarded jointly and severally against all the defendants.
???
The 6th Defendant/Appellant who was dissatisfied with the Judgment expressed desire to lodge an appeal against the Judgment, but the appeal could not be filed within the statutory period. The Appellant therefore filed an application before the Court of Appeal for extension of time to appeal. The application also sought for an order for stay of execution of the Judgment of the High Court pending the determination of the Appeal. While the Appellant's application for extension of time within which to appeal and stay of execution of Judgment was pending in the Court of Appeal, the Appellant again filed another application for stay of the said judgment at the High Court amongst other prayers. This according to the Appellant was because execution was effected and his movable asset was attached.

The learned trial Judge raised the issue of the application filed by the appellant for stay of execution suo motu. The learned Counsel for the Appellant addressed the High Court although Counsel for the Respondent was absent. The High Court eventually dismissed the Appellant's application. Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

ISSUES:
The Court determined the appeal on these issues couched as follows:
(1). Whether an infraction of the Appellant's Constitutional right of fair hearing was not caused by the learned trial Judge when he raised suo motu the issue of the application before the Court being in abuse of the process of the Court and thereupon dismissed the application without its consideration on the merit.
(2). Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he held that Appellant's application filed 12/8/2015 was in abuse of the process of the Court and proceeded to dismiss it without consideration on its merit.

DECISION/HELD:
On the whole, the Court found no merit in the appeal and accordingly dismissed same.


Read Full Judgment