EZEWANI & ORS V. ONWORDI & ORS.
| Pages | 914-934 |
914
NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES
[1986] 2 N.S.C.C.
EZEWANI & ORS V. ONWORDI & ORS.
5
OBI IZEDIUNO EZEWANI & ORS
(The Obi of Ogwashi-Uku)
APPELLANTS
[For himself and the people
10
of Ogwashi-Uku]
V
OBI NKARDI ONWORDI & 3 ORS
[For themselves and behalf
of Ogbe - Owele, Umu-Ekae,
RESPONDENTS
15
Umu-Ezeagwu and Umu-Ehea
Quarters of Ibusa]
SUIT NO. SC 3
2
/
1
985
SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
OBASEKI,
J.S.C.
20
ANIAGOLU,
J.S.C.
NNAMANI,
J.S.C.
KAZEEM,
J.S.C.
OPUTA,
J.S.C.
27th June, 1986
25
Land Law - Issue estoppel - Claim for declaration of title - Traditional history
relied on by present portions in previews consolidated actions between them
for declaration of title to same land - Conclusiveness of findings in that action
rejecting present defendant's traditional evidence in favour of that of present
30
plaintiffs present defendant estopped from re-litigating issue of traditional history.
Practice and Procedure - Pleadings - Sufficiency re issue estoppel - Action for
declaration of title - Failure to specifically re-plead present plaintiffs traditional
history and to specifically plead issue estoppel in regard to previous findings
35
in favour of plaintiffs' traditional history - Issue estopped sufficiently pleaded
and pleading afresh of plaintiffs traditional history unnecessary.
ISSUES:
1.
Whether it is necessary for parties to an action for declaration of title to
40
specifically plead history or issue estoppel when relying on pleadings in a
previous traditional case on the same property.
2.
When does issue estoppel apply to a case?
FACTS:
The land dispute in this case started in 1962 when the people of Ogwashi-Uku
45
as plaintiffs sued the people of Ibusa for a declaration of title to land, damage for
trespass and a perpetual injunction. The defendants did not counter-claim. Both
parties strongly relied on evidence of traditional histories. The trial Judge disbe-
lieved that of the plaintiffs, and accepted that of the defendants. Thus the people
of Ogwashi-Uku lost the claim both in the High Court and in the Supreme Court.
50
A declaration however, could not be given in favour of the defendants, as they had
not counter-claimed.
EZEWANI & ORS V. ONWORDI & ORS.
915
In 1966, the Ibusa people as plaintiffs instituted a fresh action against Ogwa-
shi-Uku people as defendants for a declaration of title. In their statement of claim,
they pleaded the facts and findings of the previous proceedings, but did not spe-
cifically plead traditional history. The defendants in their traditional history, pleaded
5
a different traditional history from the one relied on in the 1962 case.
After considering the evidence, the trial Judge dismissed the plaintiffs' claim
for trespass but gave judgment for the for the declaration of title and injunction.
The defendants appealed against this decision to the Court of Appeal who dis-
missed the appeal. The defendants thereupon appealed to the Supreme Court,
10
contending that the plaintiffs did not specifically plead issue estoppel, and could
not rely on a traditional history which was not specifically pleaded.
HELD:
1. The issue of traditional history was previously decided in the 1962 cases
between the parties on the same land in dispute, against the appellants. It has
15
thus become an issue estoppel, hence the appellants were estopped from
relitigating the issue in this appeal. The issue of traditional history need not be
specifically pleaded as an issue estoppel. They have already been pleaded in
paragraphs 7 and 10 of the amended statement of claim which contains
sufficient facts on which the issue can be founded.
20
2. Issue estoppel applies whether the point involved in the earlier decision is one
of fact or law or one of mixed law and fact. But for the principle to apply in any
given proceedings, all the preconditions to a valid plea of estoppel
inter partes
or
per rem judicatam
must apply.
25
CASES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT:
1.
Chinwendu v. Mbamali & Anor
(1980) 3-4 S.C. 31.
2.
Re Vandervell's Trusts
3.
Yaw Duedu v. Evi Yiboe
4.
Amos Ogbesusi Aro v. Salami Fabolude
(1983) 2 S.C. 75.
30
5.
Fidelitas Shipping
Co.
Ltd v. vlo Exportchleb
6.
Lawal v. Dawodu & Anor
(1972) 1 All N.L.R. 270.
7.
Cole v.
Sanyaolu
(1976) 9-10 S.C. 230.
8.
New Brunswick Railway
Co. v.
British and French Trust Corporation Ltd.
35
9.
Fadina v. Gbadebo
(1978) 3 S.C. 219.
10.Lamai v. Orbih
(1980) 5-7 S.C. 28.
11.
George and Ors v. Dominion Flour Mills Ltd
(1963) 1 All N.L.R. 71.
12.King v. Hoare
(1844) 13 M & W 495.
13.Outram v. Morewood
40
14.Kodilinye v. Mbanefo Odu
(1935) 2 W.A.C.A. 336.
15.Emegokwue v. Okadigbo
(1973) 4 S.C. 113.
16.0dunsi v. Boulos
(1959) 4 F.S.C. 234.
17.R v.
Duches of Kingston
20 St. Tr. 355, (1976) 1 East P.C. 468 (1775-1802)
All E.L.R. 623.
45
18.Evans v. Bartlam
19.
London Joint Stock Bank v. Haidance
20.
Winnan v. Winnan
(1949) Probate 174 C.A.
21.Kwasi Agyako v. Nazir Zok & Ors
(1941) 10 W.A.C.A. 277.
22. Badar Bee v. Habib Merican Noordin.
50
Mr. G.O.K. Ajayl, S.A.N.
[with him
G.N. Uweche
and
A. Adara (Miss)]
for
Appellants
Chief F.R.A. Williams, S.A.N.
[with him
Mr. P.O. Balonwu S.A.N., Chuka Agbu,
F.R.A. Williams (Jnr.)]
for Respondents.
To continue reading
Request your trial