Whether A Party Can Benefit from An Illegality and Whether Court(s) Can Enforce It?

CASE TITLE:  ALHAJI ISIYAKU YAKUBU ENTERPRISES LTD & ORS v. HON. COMMISSIONER, MINISTRY OF HOUSING & ORS (2025) LPELR-81972(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 20TH AUGUST, 2025

PRACTICE AREA: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

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

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on Civil Procedure.

FACTS:

This appeal is against the judgment delivered on 21/12/2021.

The grouse of the 1st-3rd Appellants (as 1st-3rd Plaintiffs) derived from the fact that the Respondents’ agents came unto the landed property of the 1st and 2nd Appellants, where the 3rd Appellant is the 2nd Appellant’s tenant, whereat, the agents of the Respondents marked some structures thereon with red ink. The 2nd Plaintiff in their affidavit averred that following the act of intrusion of the defendants, he wrote a letter to the 1st defendant which was also copied to the General Manager of the 2nd defendant. The defendants were put on notice to produce the original at the trial.  The 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs further averred that the defendants’ act of marking their property was done without having regard to building plan approvals and other approval granted the Plaintiffs by the defendants.

The Plaintiffs stated that the action of the defendants was done without justification and without the consent of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs further stated that the actions of the agents/staff of the 2nd defendant which is a department of the 3rd defendant under the supervision of the 1st respondent has caused them pains and loss of earnings and that the actions of the defendants or their agents have caused him embarrassment before the public.

The Appellants (as Plaintiffs) therefore filed the instant suit before the trial Court. At the trial, the Appellants called one witness, who tendered several exhibits. The Respondents called one witness. Parties, through respective learned counsel addressed the trial Court, which, thereafter, delivered its judgment, wherein, it dismissed the case of the Appellants.

Appellants, in a state of aggrievement, filed the instant appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court determined the appeal on these issues, thus:

1. Whether from the totality of the evidence adduced before the trial Court the trial Judge was right when he failed to find and hold that the acts of the Defendants are unlawful and amounts to trespass?

2. Whether in the face of the apparent lack of material evidence on ground during the visit to locus in quo to corroborate the evidence of DW1, the trial Judge was right to have given probative value and acted on the evidence of DW1 and whether or not the decision of the trial Court is against the weight of evidence adduced before the trial Court?

DECISION/HELD:

In the final analysis, the appeal was dismissed.

RATIOS:

• APPEAL- GROUND(S) OF APPEAL: Effect of a vague ground of appeal
• APPEAL- FRESH POINT(S) ON APPEAL: Effect of raising a fresh issue for the first time on appeal without leave of Court
• APPEAL- GROUND(S) OF APPEAL: Whether a specific finding of Court can only be attacked on appeal by a specific ground of appeal; effect of specific finding of Court with no specific ground of appeal against it
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- ILLEGALITY: Whether a party can benefit from an illegality and whether Court(s) can en

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