Introduction to the Legal Proceedings
In a legal motion filed on 9th June 2022, the Applicants sought an order from the Supreme Court to extend the time for seeking leave to appeal as interested parties against the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 15th September 2020 in Appeal No. CA/IB/19/2014 between Mr Saibu Olugbode & Anor v Chief Taoridi Dada & Anor. The applicants also requested an order granting them leave to appeal the said judgment and another order extending the time to file their Notice of Appeal before the Supreme Court.
The case centered around the judgment of the Court of Appeal that affected the Applicants’ vital interests. They were not joined as parties or made aware of the suit at the High Court of Ogun State in Suit No. HCT/IB/19/2015 and Appeal No. CA/IB/19/2014, which led to the judgment. The Applicants claimed to be the owners of a large parcel of land measuring about 464.77 hectares, upon which the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision that gave the 2nd Respondent title to the land, to the detriment of the Applicants. The Applicants only became aware of the judgment and the proceedings leading to it on 5th February 2021 when the 2nd Respondent initiated an action against them asserting title to the land.
Key Issues and Arguments
The 1st Respondent did not oppose the Applicants’ application. However, the 2nd Respondent filed a counter-affidavit with 22 annexures and a written address opposing the application. In response, the Applicants submitted a reply affidavit and a reply address.
The primary issue for determination was whether the Applicants had provided sufficient reasons for the Supreme Court to exercise its discretion in favor of their application.
Counsel for the Applicants argued that they met the necessary conditions, provided substantial reasons for their failure to apply for leave to appeal within the time frame, and demonstrated arguable grounds of appeal, which entitled them to the grant of the application. He cited SHANU v AFRICABANK NIGERIA PLC (2000) 13 NWLR (PT. 684) 392. The counsel contended that the four grounds of appeal in the proposed Notice of Appeal were based on breach of fair hearing, perversity of the Court of Appeal’s decision, and the grant of reliefs in excess of the claim, all of which required court leave. The Applicants’ Counsel further argued that these grounds concerned fresh issues not raised in the lower courts, which the Applicants would have raised if they had been made parties in those courts.
Counsel for the 2nd Respondent countered by stating that the Applicants were privy to a pending appeal before the Supreme Court in Appeal No. SC/CV/79/2022, which was lodged by the 1st Respondent against the decision of the Court of Appeal that the Applicants were seeking to appeal against. He argued that the Applicants knew about the proceedings and were bound by them, citing imputed notice through their surveyor who was the 1st Respondent’s 14th witness in the consolidated suits that led to the appeal. The 2nd Respondent’s counsel submitted that the Applicants’ application was a duplication of the 1st Respondent’s appeal and another action in Suit No. HCT/185/2021, and thus an abuse of court process.
Legal Rulings and Rationale
The Supreme Court noted that the 2nd Respondent’s opposition to the Applicants’ application was that it was a duplication of pending actions and appeals, constituting an abuse of court process. The Court held that multiplication of actions on the same subject-matter between the same parties is regarded as an abuse of court process.
Expounding on the connotation and classes of parties in litigation, the Apex Court described parties as including privies, classified into blood, law, and estate. The Court reasoned that parties to an action embrace privy in estate. Relying on Blacks Law Dictionary, the Court defined a privy as a person having a legal interest of privity in any action, matter, or property.
From Exhibit OBJ 5, the Court noted that the Applicants derived their title to the land in dispute in 1978 from the 1st Respondent, who substituted and supplanted the Applicants’ vendors in the consolidated Suits No. HCT/7/89 and HCT/212/96. The Court found that the Applicants trace their interest and right to the 1st Respondent, who is the 1st Appellant in the pending Appeal No. SC/CV/79/2022. The Court held that the Applicants will swim or sink with the decision in this appeal, as they are ultimate beneficiaries of the decision.
The Apex Court concluded that the Applicants’ application is a classic exemplification of duplication of the pending appeal in SC/CV/79/2022. The Court also noted a pending suit in Suit No. HCT/185/2021, filed by the 2nd Respondent’s family against the Applicants, where the Applicants counter-claimed. Despite differences in the parties, the Court held that the claims revolve around the ownership of the disputed land, and a court’s pronouncement thereon shapes the destiny of other related claims.
Conclusion and Dismissal
In conclusion, the Apex Court found that the Applicants’ application is a gross abuse of court process of Appeal No. SC/CV/79/2022 and Suit No. HCT/185/2021, both in the configuration of the parties and claims, and is thus liable to an order of dismissal without an opportunity to relist it.
Representation
Dr Olumide Ayeni, SAN with Olutunde Abegunde and others for the Applicants.
Olufemi O. N. Olabisi for the 1st Respondent.
M. I. Hanafi, SAN with O. A. Omolase and others for the 2nd Respondent.
No representation for the 3rd Respondent.
Reported by Optimum Publishers Limited, Publishers of the Nigerian Monthly Law Reports (NMLR)
(An affiliate of Babalakin & Co.)
Copyright 2025 This Day. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (PasarModern.com).
Tagged:
Nigeria,
Legal and Judicial Affairs,
Governance,
West Africa
Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (Syndigate.info).
