Whether Litigants Can Compel the Court to Hear or Determine a Matter Within a Certain Time Frame

CASE TITLE: LAWAL & ORS V. ELIAS & ORS (2024) LPELR-61897(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 4TH APRIL, 2024
PRACTICE AREA: CIVIL PROCEDURE
LEAD JUDGMENT: MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, J.C.A

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on Civil Procedure.

FACTS:

This appeal is against the decision of the High Court of Lagos State, Ikeja.

The 1st and 2nd Respondents, as Administrator and Administratrix of the Estate of Late Alhaji A.W. Elias, commenced an action against the Appellants and the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th Respondents, claiming declaration that they are the legal owners of the parcel of land situated at No. 39, Budland Road, Akinyode, Ojodu, Lagos State, belonging to the late A.W. Elias, and that the entry of said land by the Appellants and the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th Respondents amounts to trespass. Appellants challenged the competence of the Claimants to institute the action by filing a Preliminary Objection on the ground that they have no locus standi to institute the action and that the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the same.

The Court ordered, inter alia, that the defendants shall commence the process of winding up the estate by completing the distribution of the properties of this estate commenced in 1990 and in line with the distribution pattern adopted in 1990, and that the process of winding up the estate shall be concluded on or by December 31, 2016. At the conclusion of the Preliminary Objection, the trial Court ruled in favour of the Claimants.

The Appellant was dissatisfied with the above findings of the trial Court, hence, this appeal.

ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court determined the appeal on this sole issue:

“Whether in view of the judgment of OLUYEMI, J. in Suit No. LD/482/2011, and the amended capacity of the 1st and 2nd Respondents, the lower Court was right in holding that the 1st and 2nd Respondents have locus standi to institute the action, the subject matter of this appeal.”

DECISION/HELD:

In the final analysis, the appeal was held to be unmeritorious and it was accordingly dismissed.

RATIOS:

• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – HEARING OF A CASE – Whether litigants can compel the Court to hear or determine a matter within a certain time frame
• APPEAL – UNAPPEALED FINDING(S)/DECISION(S) – Effect of failure to appeal against the finding(s) of a Court

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