AJAO & ORS V. ALAO & ORS.
| Pages | 1327-1347 |
AJAO & ORS V. ALAO & ORS.
1327
AJAO & ORS V. ALAO & ORS.
5
OJO AJAO & OTHERS
V
10 POPOOLA ALAO & OTHERS
APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
SUIT NO. SC 158/1985
SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
ANIAGOLU,
J.S.C.
KAZEEM,
15
KARIBI-WHYTE,
KAWU,
OPUTA,
5th December, 1986
J.S.C.
J.S.C.
J.S.C.
J.S.C.
20
Land Law - Declaration of title, trespass and injunction - Both panics pleading
grant front same grantor to their respective ancestors as their root of title -
Burden on plaintiffs to establish their claim that defendants derived their title
from them (plaintiffs).
25
Estoppel
-
Res Judicata - Previous subsisting customary court judgment - Challenged
in subsequent proceedings between same parties or null and incapable as
operating as estoppel - Propriety.
Practice and Procedure - Pleadings - Defence - Traverse - Need for specific
30
denial or specific non-admission of averments in statement of claim - Rule
that plea of "not in a position to admit or deny" - Not sufficient denial -
Applicable only where defendant's pleadings ambiguous - Inapplicable where
defence comprehensively sets out its case.
35
ISSUES:
1.
Whether the validity of a decision in a previous case not appealed against can
be raised and pronounced upon in a subsequent case.
2.
Whether a subsisting judgment can cease to operate as
res judicata
in
subsequent proceedings.
40
3. Does a statement of defence which comprehensively sets out the defendant's
case in addition to stating that the defendant is "not in a position to admit or
deny" certain paragraphs of the statement of claim side-track the rule in
Lewis
& Peat (N.R.I) Ltd. v. Akhimien?
4. What conditions must a court satisfy in order to be competent to exercise its
45
jurisdiction?
FACTS:
The plaintiffs instituted an action against the defendants claiming a declaration
of title under native law and custom to a certain parcel of land, damages for tres-
pass and a restraining injunction.
50
Both parties pleaded a grant from the same grantor to their respective ances-
tors as their root of title, the plaintiffs averring that the land in dispute was excluded
from the portion later granted by their ancestor to the defendant's ancestor, whilst
the defendants claimed a direct grant of the land in dispute to their ancestor by the
said grantor.
1328
NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES [1986] 2 N.S.C.C.
The defendants contended that the plaintiffs were estopped from bringing the
action in view of a previous action in the Customary Court between themselves
and a member of the plaintiffs' family in which judgment was given in their (de-
fendants' favour). The plaintiffs replied by stating that the said previous judgment
was null and incapable of constituting
res judicata
on the ground that the custom-
5
ary court lacked jurisdiction, because the value of the land in dispute before it was
not stated in the writ of summons. The learned trial judge, after considering the
evidence before him, dismissed the plaintiffs' claims - stating that they had failed
to establish their claim on the traditional evidence adduced on their behalf and
also that the defence of
res judicata
relied upon by the defendants was valid.
10
The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeal which agreed with the trial judge's
finding of facts and dismissed the appeal, whereupon the plaintiffs further ap-
pealed to the Supreme Court.
The plaintiffs/appellants contended that the Court of Appeal erred in holding
that the Customary Court judgment was not open to challenge, that the Court of
15
Appeal should not have held that they had failed to establish their claim to the land
in dispute on the evidence adduced and should have held that the defence's plead-
ing that the defendant was "not in a position to admit or deny" the paragraphs of
the statement of claim pleading the plaintiff's root of title and traditional evidence,
was not a sufficient denial.
20
HELD:
1. The question of the validity of a judgment cannot be considered unless there
is an appeal against the decision. However, where evidence of want of
jurisdiction is adduced against a judgment which has not been appealed
against,but is relied upon as a defence to an action, the Court can pronounce
25
as to the validity of such judgment where the validity is challenged by the person
against whose interest the judgment is being tendered. This is provided for in
S.52 of the Evidence Act.
2. The validity of a judgment can be challenged where it is relied upon as
res
judicata
and there is evidence of its invalidity before the court. The ground on
30
which the appellant invited the lower courts to reject the respondent's defence
of
res judicata
i.e. that the value of the land in dispute was not stated in the writ
of summons filed and that a judgment founded upon such a writ of summons
lacked jurisdiction and was therefore null and void. did not constitute a sufficient
defect as to declare the proceedings in the Customary Court a nullity.
35
3. Since the customary court was competent to hear the case in that it satisfied all
the conditions for its exercise of jurisdiction i.e.
(a)
it was properly constituted;
(b)
the subject matter of the action was within its jurisdiction;
(c)
the matter was initiated by due process of law,
40
the appellant needed to bring evidence
ex facie
to show that the court lacked
jurisdiction.
4. The statement of defence of the respondents clearly set out the details of their
case which was opposed to the case pleaded by the appellant and thus
constituted a sufficient traverse. To constitute a traverse it is not necessary that
45
every paragraph of the statement of claim be specifically denied. The rule in
Lewis & Peat (N.R.I) Ltd. v Akhimien
that a plea 'that the defendant is "not in a
position to admit or deny" paragraphs of the statement of claim,' is not a
sufficient denial - is applicable only where the defendant's pleading is
ambiguous. Since the respondents in this case comprehensively set out their
50
case, despite their including the said phrase, it cannot be said that their
statement of defence side tracked the decision in
Lewis & Peat (N.R.I) Ltd. v.
Akhimien.
To continue reading
Request your trial