FAGBEMI V. ALUKO

• Pages: 183-187

FAGBEMI V. ALUKO



183

titioners. As we stated earlier, there was no defence whatever to the charges and

at the final stage, counsel for Mr. Edewor asked for clemency. We would have

been moved had it not been so obvious that Mr. Edewor is reckless, unreliable

and untrustworthy. He made a promise before his fellow practitioners who judged

5



him that he would refund the monies, the subject matter of the charges, within a

month, but he made no attempt whatever to do so. He left them in no doubt that

he regretted his conduct and would make amends; but he left and was not heard

of again.

We have come to the conclusion that his recklessness and his indifference

10



have been carried to such an extent that he cannot be trusted to act with decorum

in his profession if he were allowed to go away with a warning. The punishment

for his misconduct will be to suspend him from practising in the Supreme Court

for the period of six months as from this day.. In the interest of the profession we

hereby order the Chief Registrar of this court to bring this order of suspension to

15



the notice of all the courts in Nigeria.

One last word. It is with some concern we have to add that Mr. Edewor's atti-

tude to official correspondence is one of disrespect and total disregard of auth-

ority which does not befit the noble and honourable profession to which he

belongs.

20

FAGBEMI V. ALUKO

25

EMMANUEL FAGBEMI



APPELLANT

V

ISIAH ALUKO



RESPONDENT

30





SUIT NO. SC 293/1966

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ADEMOLA,



C.J.N.

COKER,



J.S.C.

MADARIKAN,



J.S.C.

35



5th July, 1968.

Land Law - Declaration - Title to land - Equitable Doctrine of ladies



Principles

guiding courts in application of doctrine.

40

ISSUE:

1. What are the principles that guide the courts in applying the equitable doctrine

of laches.

FACTS:

The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant in the Ilesha Grade A Cus-

45



tomary Court, claiming a declaration of title to a piece of land in Ilesha. The plain-

tiff's evidence was that on his return from a trip to a place called Kishi, he found

that the defendant had built a shop on his land which he had inherited from his an-

cestors. He ordered the defendant to remove his shop, and despite persuasions

by several persons, he remained adamant. Soon, he went abroad again. On his

50



return he met the shop there and again ordered the defendant to remove it, but to

no avail. The plaintiff travelled again, this time for over 20 years, and on his re-

turn the shop was still there. He demanded again that the shop be removed, the

defendant did nothing, and the plaintiff brought the action. In his defence, the de-

fendant claimed a right to the land as family land, and pleaded the defences of