Can the Court at the Pre-Trial Stage Make Appropriate Decisions with Regards to Admission of Fact?

CASE TITLE: BANKOLE & ORS V. OKWARA & ORS (2026) LPELR-83379(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 18TH MARCH, 2026

PRACTICE AREA: CIVIL PROCEDURE

LEAD JUDGMENT: UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on Civil Procedure.

FACTS:

This appeal is against the ruling of the High Court of Lagos State, sitting at Lagos Judicial Division delivered by HON. JUSTICE GANIYU ALI SAFARI on the 21ST day of June, 2023 in Suit No: LD/2862LMW/16.

This suit was initiated by the 1st Respondent, who acted as the Claimant, while the 2nd to 4th Respondents and the Appellants served as Defendants before the trial Court. The 1st Respondent’s claim primarily contested the alleged revocation of his title to two parcels of land located in Awoyaya, Ibeju-Lekki, Lagos.

The 1st Respondent claimed that the title to the disputed land, was reportedly revoked by the 2nd to 4th Respondents and subsequently reallocated to the Appellants for private use. It was also part of his claim that this action occurred without the requisite notice of revocation and acquisition being served, nor was any compensation paid to the 1st Respondent.

Distressed by this oppressive development, the 1st Respondent approached the trial Court.

In opposition to the 1st Respondent’s action, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 8th Appellants filed a Statement of Defence separately; they all denied the 1st Respondent’s claim and title to the land in dispute. The 2nd to 4th Respondents being the grantor of the various plots of land filed their joint Statement of Defence, wherein they claimed that the 1st Respondent was not the original or customary owner of the land in dispute and was not entitled to any notice of revocation and the root of title of the 1st Respondent was vigorously denied and challenged.

At the close of pleadings and during Case Management Conference, the 1st Respondent filed a motion praying the trial Court to activate its jurisdiction under its Rules to determine the matter on the issue of law raised which required no oral evidence.

In response to the said motion the 2nd – 4th Respondents, as well as the Appellants, filed processes opposing the 1st Respondent’s application, contending, in the main, that the trial Court ought to proceed to trial for without any evidence being adduced by the parties.

After hearing all parties, the trial Court delivered its ruling wherein it held that the matter was one determinable on points of law at the stage of Case Management Conference since no triable issue was borne out on the pleadings. The trial Court also held that the 1st Respondent is the person entitled to the deemed grant of occupancy to the land in dispute. Dissatisfied with the Ruling of the Trial Court, the Appellant filed an Appeal.

ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court considered the merits of the appeal.

DECISION/HELD:

In the final analysis, the appeal was dismissed.

RATIOS:         

• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- PRE-TRIAL/CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE: Whether the court can at the pre-trial stage make appropriate decisions with regards to admission of fact
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- PRE-TRIAL/CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE: Nature of a pre-trial conference
• EVIDENCE- DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: Whether Court can look at document in its file, not tendered or admitted
• LIMITATION LAW- LIMITATION LAW OF LAGOS STATE: Interpretation of the Limitation Law of Lagos State as it applies to an action by a person to recover land

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