IYAJI V. EYIGEBE

• Pages: 1035-1047

IYAJI V. EY1GEBE



1035

IYAJI V. EYIGEBE

5

MUSA IYAJI

V

10 SULE EYIGEBE

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ESO,



J.S.C.

ANIAGOLU,



J.S.C.

15



NNAMANI,



J.S.C.

UWAIS,



J.S.C.

OPUTA,



J.S.C.

10th July, 1987

DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 232/1984

20

Appeals - Appeal court should confine itself to issues arising from grounds of

appeal - Method of consideration of judgments of native, area and customary

courts should differ from that adopted in dealing with High Court judgments

- Appellate court - Power to order retrial or make any consequential order it

deems fit whether specifically requested for or not by either party - General

25





powers of Court of Appeal under S.16, Court of Appeal Act - Defences -

Plea of res judicata - Cannot be considered in vacuo - Definition, nature and

effect of plea.

Words and Phrases - Definition of "privies".

30

ISSUES:

1.

Whether any appeal court should consider issues not raised by any ground of

appeal.

2.

Whether an appeal court should treat the judgments of native, area and

35



customary courts as it would treat a High Court judgment.

3.

Whether an appellate court can order a retrial or make any consequential order

when that particular order has not been specifically requested for.

FACTS:

In the Area Court Grade II Ajaja, the respondent as plaintiff brought a claim

40





against the appellant for an order to restrain the appellant from trespassing on land

in dispute between the parties. The court heard evidence and admitted judgments

in suits between the deceased brothers of the parties; the court awarded owner-

ship of the land to the respondent:. The appellant appealed to the High Court where

his appeal was allowed on the grounds that the trial court failed to properly evalu-

45





ate the evidence that the piece of land in dispute was called by different names in

the case and that the judgments in the previous suits between the deceased bro-

thers of the parties are a bar to the present case. Thereupon the respondent ap-

pealed to the Court of Appeal; his appeal was allowed and a retrial of the case

was ordered. The appellant appealed against this decision to the Supreme Court.

50

HELD:

1. An appellate court should ordinarily confine itself to the grounds filed before it

and to issues that naturally arise out of those grounds, it should not gratuitously

consider issues not raised by any ground of appeal. The parties did not make

boundaries an issue, this the Court of Appeal wrongfully did. Since the Court