OGHENE & SONS LTD V. AMORUNA & ANOR.

• Pages: 845-851

OGHENE & SONS LTD V. AMORUNA & ANOR



845

OGHENE & SONS

LTD V. AMORUNA & ANOR

5

D.O. OGHENE & SONS LTD.

V

10 W.E. AMORUWA & ANOR

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ESO,



J.S.C.

UWAIS,



J.S.C.

15



COKER,



J.S.C.

KARIBI-WHYTE,



J.S.C.

KAWU,



J.S.C.

20th June, 1986

APPELLANT

RESPONDENTS

SUIT NO. SC 21/1985

20

Practice and Procedure - Necessary party - Action for recovery of premises and

arrears of rent - Onus on plaintiff under S.19(i)(e) of Recovery of Premises

law of Bendel State to prove his title where it accrued since the letting -

3rd party claiming to be landlord of defendants refused leave to join as

co-defendant by trial magistrate at commencement of proceedings.

25

Landlord and Tenant - Plaintiff's case based on acquisition of premises from said

3rd party by whom defendants admittedly put into possession - Defendants'

contending that they were paying rent to 3rd party and on his instructions

later paid to plaintiff for some years then resumed payment to 3rd party

-

30





Plaintiff's claim discussed for failure to call 3rd party to prove it's title -

3rd party a necessary party for satisfactory determination of fundamental issue

of who in fact is landlord and his application for joinder wrongly refused -

Joinder and trial de novo ordered by Supreme Court.

35

ISSUE:

1. Whether an action for recovery of premises can be determined, where there is

uncertainty as to whom the real landlord is.

FACTS:

The appellants as plaintiffs in the senior Magistrates Court, instituted an action

40





against the respondents for recovery of premises. The respondents dismissed the

claim, stating that they were put into possession by one Joseph Okitikpi who was

the landlord. Mr. Okitikpi applied by motion to be joined as co- defendant to the

suit, and the application was heard and dismissed. The learned Senior Magistrate,

after hearing the evidence, held that the appellants did not establish their title to

45





the property and dismissed the claim. The appellants appealed to the High Court

which after considering the points allowed the appeal.

The respondents, being dissatisfied with the High Court decision, appealed to

the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal come to the conclusion that the appel-

late High Court was in error to have decided that it was not necessary for Mr. Oki-

50





tikpi, to give evidence with regard to the appellants title, and allowed the appeal.

The Appellants have now appealed to the Supreme Court.