BADIRU V. ELETU

• Pages: 242-245

242



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1967] N.S.C.C.

have done, if he wished to question any statement of fact made by his opponent,

was to give notice to him to attend for cross-examination. If that had been done,

it would doubtless have been brought to the notice of the learned trial judge that

accounts had been delivered; they would have been produced and canvassed,

and things would have been clearer to him. The way the proceedings were con-



5

ducted did not help the learned judge.

The respondent to this appeal was to blame, and that in two respects; he chose

an unsuitable procedure for a hostile attack, and under the guise of it he sought

to reopen the accounts which had been considered by Bennet J., he was wrong

in both respects, and ought to pay the costs of this appeal and in the court below,



10

for it cannot be said with any show of reason that he was acting in the interests of

the estate.

We assess the costs in this Court at 100 guineas and 40 guineas in the court

below.

Appeal allowed.



15

BADIRU V. ELETU

20

WULEMOTU BADIRU



APPELLANT

V.

AMINATU ELETU



RESPONDENT



25

SUIT NO. SC 48/1966

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ADEMOLA,



C.J.N.

BRETT,



J.S.C.

LEWIS,



J.S.C.



30

17th November, 1967

Civil Procedure - Magistrates - Original jurisdiction - Bar where cases raised issue

of title to or interest in land - Deciding whether issue raised bona fide -

Magistrate's Court (Lagos) Act, section 14(2)(a).



35

ISSUE:

1. What must a magistrate consider before deciding whether or not to uphold an

objection to his trying a matter on the grounds that it raises issues as to title or

interest in land?



40

FACTS:

The plaintiff (appellant) claimed £100 damages for trespass by the defendant

on his land, further claims of damages for nuisance and removal of the structure

causing said nuisance to his house.

When the case came up for hearing before the magistrate, defence counsel



45

relying on section 14(2)(a) of the Magistrates Court (Lagos) Act (which effective-

ly precludes a magistrate from exercising original jurisdiction in a matter which

"raises any issue as to title



or



interest in land") objected that the magistrate

had no jurisdiction because the case raised an issue of interest in land. All the

magistrate had before him was the plaintiff's claim. In reply, plaintiff's counsel



50

stated that the plaintiff claimed ownership of land on which the structure was

erected by the defendant who had acted in spite of the plaintiff's protests and thus

claimed an adverse right in the land, but that the present claim against the defend-

ant was for abatement of nuisance and no question of interest in or title to land was