DWEYE & ORS. V. IYOMAHAN & ORS.

• Pages: 393-397

393



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1983] N.S.C.C.

DWEYE & ORS V. IYOMAHAN & ORS

5

1.

JOHN IKINBOR DWEYE

APPELLANTS

2.

IYEFABIRI BISIN

3.

TIMOTHY OFUNANA

10

(For themselves and on behalf

of Gelegele Community)

V

1.

JOSEPH I. IYOMAHAN

2.

OGBEFUN EGHAREVBA

RESPONDENTS

15

3.

UWUIGBUSUN NORAGBO

4.

OMOGIATE OKUNHON

(For themselves and on behalf

of Ugholo Village Community)

SUIT NO. SC 131/1982



20

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

IDIGBE,



J.S.C.

OBASEKI,



J.S.C.

ESO,



J.S.C.

ANIAGOLU.



J.S.C.



25

UWAIS,



J.S.C.

19th August, 1983

Practice and Procedure - Applicability of Land Use Act - New Point - Issue

raised for first time on sole ground of appeal to Supreme Court.



30

Land Law - Defendants' rights under s.36(4) of the Act as occupiers of land in

dispute - Whether award of customary title to plaintiff prejudicial to need

for evidence establishing that land in dispute in fact outside area designated

"Urban" by Bendel State.



35

ISSUES:

1.

Whether an appeal which raises only issues of facts or mixed facts and law,

can be entertained without obtaining leave.

2.

Does the question whether land is subject to a statutory right of occupancy, or



40

customary right of occupancy depend on the character of the tenure or the

location of the land?

3.

Whether a question which was not raised in a High Court or Federal Court of

Appeal, can be raised on appeal to the Supreme Court.

FACTS:



45

The plaintiffs/respondents instituted an action for a declaration of title to land,

damages for trespass and an injunction restraining the defendants from further

acts of trespass. On taking evidence, the trial judge dismissed the plaintiffs claims

in their entirety.

The plaintiffs appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal, which held in their fa-



50

your.

The defendants, being aggrieved by the decision, appealed to the Supreme

Court, filing 8 grounds of appeal. Seven of the grounds were objected to

in iimine

and struck out for being incompetent, as they raised only issues of facts. The last