The case started in 1984, when the Anglican Church through its Lagos Diocese, filed a suit before the Ikeja High Court, claiming ownership of a vast portion of land, situate and being at Iwaya area of Lagos State. The Church was claiming under a deed, whilst members of Iwaya community claimed direct purchase from the Oloto Chieftaincy family. In the course of trial, the Oloto Chieftaincy family joined the case as the 7th defendant.
Judgment was delivered 1998, by Hon Justice Fatai Adeyinka (as he then was), granting the claims of the church in part and holding the defendants liable in trespass.
Being dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court, the Iwaya Community appealed against it to the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division. In a unanimous decision, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, in 2002.
It was at this point that Iwaya Community engaged human rights lawyer, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, to file an appeal against the judgment of the court of appeal. In the appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellants contended that the plaintiff before the trial court was an unregistered entity, which could not own land, file a case in court or be a beneficiary of the judgment of a court of law, itself having not been registered under any law.
In its judgment, the Supreme Court clarified the mode of proof of status of artificial bodies incorporated under the Companies and Allied Matters Act and also the rule of pleading.
In the lead judgment, it was held that an incorporated company or registered trustees bear the onus to prove its incorporation once same has not been conceded by the defendant. And the only way to prove it’s juristic personality is to produce its certificate of incorporation before the court. Re-affirming the Supreme Court decision in the 1972 case of Registered Trustees of Apostolic Church v. A-G., Mid-Western Nigeria, the court held that even if there was an admission inter parties, as the status of the incorporated body, proof of incorporation must be established as a matter of law by the production of in evidence of the certificate of incorporation, failing which any action initiated by such body will fail, the consequence being that such plaintiff is not a juristic person capable of suing and being sued.
The Supreme Court then held the judgment entered by the Lagos High Court in Favour of the plaintiff and affirmed by the court of appeal as a nullify and same was accordingly set aside.
In one of the concurring judgments, the court reviewed the rules guiding pleadings and held that it is erroneous in law to hold that a general traverse does not constitute specific denial. The Supreme Court traced the history of pleadings and reviewed all the cases on the point, including the 1893 English case of Adkins v Metropolitan Tramway Co, the 1969 Nigerian case of Mandillas and Karaberis Ltd v Apena and the established authority of the learned authors of Bullen and Leake on Precedents.
The Court held that a general traverse is effective to cast on the plaintiff the burden of proving the allegations thus generally denied. Whatever phrase is used by the pleader, whether he denies, he does not admit each and every allegation or he puts the plaintiff to the strictest proof, it all boils down to a traverse, which in law is effective denial.
Here is a brief summary of the 33 years journey of this case. It started in 1984, when the case was filed in the High Court, wherein judgment was delivered in 1998, 14 years after the case was filed. An appeal was lodged at the Court of Appeal in 1998 and judgment was delivered in 2002, 4 years after. A further appeal was filed in the Supreme Court in 2002, wherein judgment was delivered in 2017, 15 years after, totaling 33 years.
This judgment, coming after 33 years that this case was filed at the High Court, is a sad commentary on the plight of litigants in Nigeria generally. I’m aware that there are several other 33 or more years cases that are still pending in the appellate courts, due mainly to the backlog of cases, the avalanche of interlocutory appeals, the limitation on the number of appellate justices and indeed the manual system of administration of justice.
Another factor compounding the smooth and speedy determination of cases is the amendment of the relevant statues by the legislature to confer jurisdiction upon the final court in respect of certain political cases and the statutory directive that all such cases involving political office holders should be given priority above other cases and that they must be determined within 180 days, from the High Court or Tribunal, to the Court of Appeal, and to the Supreme Court. This is purely a selfish escapist mechanism adopted for their own convenience, by politicians, leaving other litigants in the lurch.
But in it all, and whatever other causes may be responsible for this kind of delay, something has to be done very urgently.
Now as of the time of the judgment of the Supreme Court in 2017, most of the original parties may have passed on and may be unable to reap the fruits of the judgment. (Thenigerialawyer)