Before Their Lordships
ALOYSIUS IYORGYER KATSINA-ALU Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
ALOMA MARIAM MUKHTAR Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
MAHMUD MOHAMMED Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
FRANCIS FEDODE TABAI Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL CHUKWUMA-ENEH Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
Between
(1) MALLAM YUSUF JIMOH
(2) MALLAM RAIMI ALAPARUN
(3) MALLAM YISA ALAPARUN Appellants
AND
(1) MALLAM KARIMU AKANDE
(2) ALHAJI ISHOLA AREOGELE Respondents
……………………A……………………….
C. M. CHUKWUMA-ENEH, J.S.C. (Delivering the Leading Jugdment):This appeal is against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Ilorin Division (i.e. Court below) delivered on 19/11/2001 upholding the decision of the Kwara State High Court of Justice sitting at Ilorin in its appellate jurisdiction delivered on 27/10/1998, which in turn has allowed the appeal against the decision of the Upper Area Court delivered on 19/3/1998 giving judgment in favour of the plaintiffs (appellants in this court). The appellants and the respondents in this Court are the plaintiffs and the defendants respectively at the trial Upper Area Court.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Court below the appellants (plaintiffs) by a Notice of Appeal dated 15/1/2002 and filed on 17/1/2002 with leave of the court below have raised six grounds of appeal therein.
The appellants and the respondents have filed and exchanged their respective briefs of argument. The appellants in their brief of argument, have distilled two issues for determination and they are as follows:
“1. Whether the court below was right having regard to exhibits P1, D1 and D2 to have agreed with the High Court that the respondents invocation of Res judicata should succeed based on exhibits D5 and D6, when the Land adjudicated upon in the latter exhibits is distinct from the land in dispute as adjudged in exhibit P1.
2.Whether the court below was right to have agreed with the High Court that the judgment of the trial Upper Area Court was not sustainable having regard to the totality of the cases of the parties and the various material contradictions contained in the case of the Respondents.”
