NWAKOBI & ORS. V. NZEKWU & ORS

• Pages: 203-209

NWAKOBI & ORS V. NZEKWU & ORS.



203

It later transpires that XYZ is a limited firm and should have been sued as XYZ Ltd.

That judgment as it stands is unenforceable against XYZ Ltd. Can it be said to be

enforceable against B personally because, though he was sued as agent, yet in point

of fact he was one of the Directors, be it noted, not of XYZ, but of XYZ Ltd.?

I

think

5



not.

The appeal in my view must succeed. The ruling of the trial Judge must be

reversed and an order for the release of the property at 98/100 Bende Street be made.

No order for costs was made in the High Court and I would here make an order only

as to the cost in this Court which I would assess at 21 guineas in favour of the ap-

10



pellant against the respondent.

Appeal allowed.

15



NWAKOBI & ORS V. NZEKWU & ORS.

ANACHUNA NWAKOBI & ORS

20



V

EUGENE N. NZEKWU & ANOR

ANACHUNA NWAKOBI & ORS

V

PHILIP ANATOGU & ANOR

25

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT.

ADEMOLA,



C.J.F.

UNSWORTH,



F.J.

BAIRAMIAN,



F.J.

30



3rd July, 1961.

APPELLANTS

RESPONDENTS

APPELLANTS

RESPONDENTS

SUIT NO. FSC 185/1960

Statutes of Limitation - Not available against Crown - Crown Lands Ordinance, Cap. 45,

s. 31.

35



Equitable defence - Equitable defence - Ladies - Available against Crown in proper case -

Fraudulent trespass on Crown Lands cannot suppoll defence of ladies.

ISSUES:

1.

Whether a defence under the statutes of Limitations is available against the Crown

40



in an action for possession of Crown lands.

2.

Whether the Equitable defence of !aches is available to trespassers who

knowingly and unlawfully take possession of lands.

FACTS:

The appellants and Respondents are the successors in interest to the parties to

45



proceedings brought to determine ownership of certain lands which were formerly

Crown Lands; which proceedings ultimately were decided by the Privy Council in fa-

vour of the predecessors of the Respondents. The judgment of the Privy Council,

while it determined ownership, did not decree possession. The Respondents com-

menced these proceedings for possession of the lands and a cross-action was

50



brought by the Appellants; which actions were consolidated for purposes of trial and

judgment. The Appellants contended that, although their predecessors in interest

were trespassers upon these lands and knowingly entered upon them when

they were Crown Lands, the Crown had lost its right to possession by rea-