Principles Guiding The Court In Making Consequential Order(s)

CASE TITLE: ZAMBWA v. ZARWA (2025) LPELR-82759(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 17TH DECEMBER, 2025

PRACTICE AREA: LAND LAW

LEAD JUDGMENT: OLABODE ABIMBOLA ADEGBEHINGBE, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on the plea of Res Judicata.

FACTS:

This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Adamawa State, Mubi Judicial Division delivered on 23/06/2016.

The Respondent (as Plaintiff) sued the Appellant (as Defendant) in the Registry of the trial Court vide a writ of summons. In paragraph 9 of the Statement of Claim, the Respondent claimed:

“(a) A declaration that the Plaintiff is the customary owner of a house situate in Fani Ward also known as Mundang ward, opposite Bazza market square, Bazza, Michika Local Government and he is therefore entitled to a customary right of occupancy over the said house.

(b) An order of this Hon. Court evicting the Defendant, his servant, agent or anybody claiming through him from the said house.

(c) An order of this Hon. Court delivering possession of the said house to the Plaintiff.

(d) Cost of this action.”

With leave of the trial Court, the Appellant filed a statement of defence on 17/09/2012. The Respondent responded by filing a reply to the statement of defence. The suit went to trial, with parties calling witnesses. Learned counsel representing the parties addressed the trial Court. The trial Court heard the suit and gave judgment in part to the Respondent, as it refused one of the three reliefs presented to it by the Respondent.

The Appellant was unhappy with the judgment. The Respondent was also unhappy. The appellant filed the instant appeal, while the respondent cross-appealed.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court determined the appeal on these issues:

“1. Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he held that EXHIBITS C and D do not establish res judicata against the suit before it?

2. Whether the lower Court was right when he granted part of the claims of the Respondent after failing to apply the doctrine of res judicata duly pleaded by the Appellant, upon which evidence was led and established through EXHIBITS C and D?

The Court determined the cross-appeal on this sole issue:

“Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he refused to grant relief (b) sought by the Cross Appellant before it?

DECISION/HELD:

In the final analysis, the appeal was dismissed. The Cross-Appeal was allowed.

RATIOS:  

·      COURT- DUTY OF COURT: Whether it is the function of a Court to supply or arrive at evidence     

·      COURT- POWER OF COURT: Power of appellate Court to make orders that ought to have been made or make such further or other orders as the justice of a case may require    

·      EVIDENCE- ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATAM/RES JUDICATA: Meaning and nature of the doctrine of res judicata       

·      JUDGMENT AND ORDER- CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER: Principles guiding the Court in making consequential order(s)

·      LAND LAW- TITLE TO LAND: Whether a party in a land dispute can rely on the title of a third party

·      LAND LAW- DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND: Whether dismissal of the claim of a plaintiff for declaration of title to land will automatically vest title in the defendant 

·      LAND LAW- TITLE TO LAND: Position of the law where there are competing claims to title to land

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol