ADENLE V. OYEGBADE & ANOR

• Pages: 17-20

ADENLE V. OYEGBADE & ANOR



17

An unlawful killing was amply proved, and the judgement of the Court will be

that a verdict of guilty of manslaughter is substituted for the verdict of guilty of mur-

der found by the High Court, and a sentence of seven years' imprisonment with

hard labour is passed in substitution for the sentence passed at the trial.

5



Manslaughter substituted for

murder.

10



ADENLE V. OYEGBADE & ANOR

SAMUEL ADENLE (The Ataoja of Oshogbo)



APPELLANT

15



V

1.

MICHAEL OYEGBADE



RESPONDENTS

2.

LAWANI SABILESU

SUIT NO. FSC 277/1962

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT

20



ADEMOLA,



F.J.N

BRETT,



J.S.C.

BAIRAMIAN,



J.S.C.

17th February, 1964

25



Estoppel - Res judicata: extended doctrine of standing by in earlier suit - Case

where wrongly applied.

ISSUE:

1. Whether the doctrine of

res judicata

of standing by would operate against a

30



plaintiff who was not a party to the earlier suit and whose interest was not served

by the suit.

FACTS:

Lawani Sabilesu for himself and some others sued Michael Oyegbade claim-

ing declaration of title to certain land as stool property and damages for trespass.

35



The suit was dismissed. Samue1 Adenle (above appellant) knew of the suit, but

before it was heard he sued Mic'iael Oyebade and Lawani Sabilesu for a decla-

ration of title to the same land. Lawani Sabilesu admitted the claim, Michael Oyeg-

bade pleaded that the judgment in the earlier suit operated as estoppel. The trial

judge decided that the appellant allowed his battle to be fought for him in the ear-

40



lier suit

1

/

1

8

7

/

5

7, and that the judgment in that suit operated as estoppel. The judge

dismissed the claim and the plaintiff appealed.

HELD:

As in suit

1

/

1

87/57 Lawani Sabilesu was asking for declaration of title to the

same land, it was not in the interest of the Ataoja (present appellant/plaintiff) who

45



is claiming title to it, to join with him in that suit; he was entitled to bring his own

action - which he did before that suit was tried - and the extended doctrine of

res

judicata

of standing by in

Nana Ofori Atta ll and another v. Nana Bonsra

does not

apply in the circumstances.

50



[As to

the Doctrine of Res Judicata generally,

see 16 HALSBURY'S LAWS

4th Edition page 1027 paras. 1527-1529.]