COKER V. ADEYEMO & ANOR.

• Pages: 13-16

COKER V. ADEYEMO & ANOR.



13

It remains to thank both the learned counsel. Mr. Coker has helped with cases,

and we are grateful for his industry. It seems to us, however that on the evidence

there was no

bona fide

question of title raised in the case in hand. If in a case like

this a magistrate were to be stopped from hearing the case, it would erode his

5



jurisdiction in landlord and tenant suits to a vanishing point ultimately.

The defendant's appeal from the High Court decision of January 29, 1965 in

case No. HK/6A/64 is allowed to this extent only, namely that the order on him to

pay £130 as rent from December 1, 1962, to January, 1965, is set aside but with-

out prejudice to any claim the plaintiffs may make, and apart from that the appeal

10



is dismissed with fifteen guineas costs in favour of the plaintiffs.

Appeal dismissed.

15



COKER V. ADEYEMO & ANOR.

ABOLADE OLATUNJI COKER

20



V

1.

LAMIDI ADEYEMO

2.

MADAM JULIANA EZEKIEL

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

25



ADEMOLA,



C.J.N.

COKER,



J.S.C.

MADARIKAN,



J.S.C.

12th January, 1968.

APPELLANT

RESPONDENTS

SUIT NO. SC 409/1965

30



Civil Actions - Practice and Procedure - Substitution of Plaintiff - No fresh

pleadings - Whether cause of action disclosed

Tort - Trespass - Land - At time of trespass defendant having right to resume

land in dispute - Whether plaintiffs could maintain action for trespass.

35

ISSUES:

1. Has a cause of action been dist.losed where a plaintiff is substituted for another,

and trial commences without any pleadings having been filed by or on behalf

of the new plaintiff.

40



2. Whether a tenant can dispute his landlord's title.

3. Can a plaintiff maintain an actiolifor trespass and injunction against a defendant

who at the time of the alleged trespass, had a right to resums possession.

FACTS:

Three plaintiffs brought an action in the High Court, Ibadan, claiming special

45



and general damages against the defendant, as a result of the trespass he com-

mitted against their goods and properties while in possession of certain land in

Ibadan; and an order of injunction. The third plaintiff's claim against the defend-

ant was later dismissed. After exchange of pleadings, counsel for the plaintiffs

obtained leave to substitute Juliana Ezekiel for the second plaintiff; the case pro-

50



ceeded to trial without any pleadings by or on behalf of Juliana Ezekiel.

Judgment was entered in the plaintiffs' favour, as to general and special dam-

ages and the injunction they sought. The defendant appealed to the Supreme

Court arguing

inter alia,

that at the time Juliana Ezekiel was substituted for the sec-

ond plaintiff, there was no material before the court to justify the order for substitu-