3PLR – ALLI V ELEPO
POLICY, PRACTICE AND PUBLISHING, 3PLR, LAW REPORTS
[PDF copy of this judgment can be sent to your email for N300 only. Just order through lawnigeria@gmail.com and info@lawnigeria.com or text 07067102097]
ALLI
V
HIGH COURT (WEST)
3PLR/1968/19 (HC)
BEFORE
AYOOLA, J,
BETWEEN
SALAMI ADEGOKE ALLI (FOR HIMSELF AND ON BEHALF OF IDOWU ELEPO FAMILY)
AND
REPRESENTATION
Diti Akande – for the Defendants
Odunlade – for the Plaintiff
MAIN ISSUES
Courts—High Court-Jurisdiction—Original—Family Status-Whether High Court has original jurisdiction in matters of status where there is competent authority to entertain such matters-High Court Law (W.N.) S.8
Words and Phrase.-”Family Status”
MAIN JUDGEMENT
AYOOLA, J.:-
The Plaintiff’s claim as laid in his writ is for “recovery of possession of land situate lying and being at Elepo’s Compound, Okepadre, Ibadan now unlawfully occupied by the defendants”. From a perusal of the pleadings and the evidence which was led on both sides, it became clear that the two sides are agreed that the land in dispute which is shown on the plan, Exhibit. `A’, belong to Elepo Family. The real basis on which the plaintiff sought possession of the land is that, as alleged by him, the defendants are not members of Elepo family. Whilst the plaintiff maintains that the defen-dants are not members of Elepo family, the defendants also counter charge that they, the defendants, are members of Elepo family but that the plaintiff is in fact not a member of Elepo family.
“Matter relating to family status” is a phrase which occurred in Section 18 of the Magistrates Courts Law 1955 of the Eastern Region of Nigeria (as it then was in 1957). The phrase was judicially considered in the case of Chief Benibo Briggs v. Renner Benibo Briggs (1958) E.N.L.R. (Volume 2) page 6 where Palmer, Ag. J. held that “the words `family status’ in section 18 of the Magistrates Courts Law means the status of an individual in respect of family matters, and that the issue of paternity and legitimacy raised (in the case before him) was an issue relating to fapuly status.” That decision has per-suasive force on me and I agree respectfully with it.
The same phrase occurs in Section 8 of the High Court Law of the Western State of Nigeria; by it the High Court has no original jurisdiction in matters relating to family status where there is competent courts to entertain such matters. There is uncontradicted evidence before me that there are Customary Courts in Ibadan which are competent to deal with the funda-mental issue raised in this action. The plaintiff invites the Court to decide whether or not the defendants descend from Elepo Family. The issue of the paternity of the defendants therefore becomes a paramount issue, which must be decided before the claim can be determined. The plaintiff’s claim for possession is rooted on the contention that the defendants do not descend from Elepo, and that consequently their occupation of Elepo Family land is “unlawful”. I hold therefore that the claim as formulated and the issues as canvassed fall squarely within the ambit of matters outside the original juris-diction of the High Court. I therefore decline jurisdiction. If I am wrong to have declined jurisdiction I would dismiss the plaintiff’s claim on the ground that I do not believe the case put forward by him that the defendants are not members of Elepo Family. I accept the defendants’ case that they, the defendants, are in fact members of Elepo Family.
This is a piece of vexatious litigation. The Plaintiff’s claim is struck out for want of jurisdiction. Alternatively it is dismissed; if I had jurisdiction, on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove to my satisfaction that the defen-dants are not members of Elepo Family.
The defendants are entitled to costs which I shall now precede to asses. Mr. Diti Akande for Defendants says that out-of-pocket amounts to £1.14s. Says there are twelve appearances. Asks for One Hundred guineas. Mr. Laleye offers 35 guineas cost.
Court: I award fifty guineas costs, all inclusive. Action struck out.
