MERIOGUN DADSON OGBE
V.
SAM WARRI ESI & ANOR

JELR 80550 (WACA)    
West Africa Court of Appeal  ·  West Africa [For WACA cases]
 · 
Other Citations
1943 9 WACA 76-77
CORAM
COR. KINGDON PETRIDES AND GRAHAM PAUL C.JJ.
Core Terms Beta
enclave
trespass
appeal
appellants
second injunction
section
damages
evidence
land
nigeria
respondent
awards of damages
figures
first injunction
injunction
justification
letters
page
places
wide terms
words
annual practice
consent of third parties
e. o. moore
first land
former acts of trespass
gold coast
grant
grant of equitable relief
grant of the second injunction
injunction-injunction
injunctions
joint judgment
judgment of trial court
notes
order of the court
order x
piece of land
plaintiff
points xl x2
proceedings
protectorate courts’ ordinance
protectorate courts’ rules
river
sierra leone
straight lines
substance
supreme court of judicature act
trial judge
whole of the land

*Page 76

Injunction-injunction granted though not claimed -Injunction in wide terms. Appellants were sued by respondent in two actions which were consolidated. In one action respondent claimed damages for trespass committed on certain land, and in the other he claimed damages for another trespass committed on a piece of land forming an enclave in the first land but not affected by the former acts of trespass, and an injunction to restrain appellants from entering the enclave.

Evidence was given of acts of trespass in the enclave and at two places in the land outside the enclave. The trial Judge gave damages for the trespass in the enclave and for the trespass at one of the places outside it, but considered that the evidence that respondent was in possession of the land at the other place was not strong enough to enable him to maintain trespass. He also gave two injunctions, one to restrain appellants from entering the enclave, and the other to restrain them from entering the whole of the land without the consent of third parties in whom the evidence showed the land outside the enclave was vested.

Held: No justification for granting the second injunction; appeal allowed as regards the second injunction, and judgment of trial Court varied by deleting the grant thereof.

(Note,-For the grant of equitable relief which has not been claimed, but the right to which appears incidentally in the proceedings, see Protectorate Courts’ Ordinance, No. 45 of 1933, section 15 (Nigeria), Protectorate Courts’ Rules, No. 5 of 1934, Order X, rule 2 (Nigeria), the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1873 (36 ,t. 37 Viet., c. 66) section 24, sub-section (4), the notes in the Annual Practice to section 40 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925 (15 and 16 Geo. 5, c. 49), and Beigh v. Shaw, 5 W.A.C.A. 16.

The right to equitable relief was not proved here; Karama v. Aselewi, 4 W.A.C.A. 150.

J. 1. C. Taylor for Appellants. E. O. Moore for Respondent.

The following joint judgment was delivered :- KINGDON, C.J., NIGERIA, PETRIDES, C.J., GOLD COAST AND GRAHAM PAUL, C.J., SIERRA LEONE. There is no substance in this appeal so far as it concerns the two awards of damages for trespass. Nor do we see any reason for interfering with the first injunction granted, except to make a slight alteration as will appear later.

*Page 77

But the second injunction granted was not asked for by the plaintiff and it is in very wide terms, we see no justification for granting it.

The appeal is dismissed as regards the two awards of damages and the first injunction granted, but it is ordered that for the words, letters and figures therein appearing “bounded by the points Xl X2 X3 and X4” there be substituted the words, letters and figures “bounded on the East by the river and on the North, “ West and South by straight lines joining the points “ X2, Xl, X3 and X4 “.

The appeal is allowed as regards the second injunction granted and it is ordered that judgment of the Court below be varied by deleting the grant of the second injunction. The order of the Court below as to costs stands good. As each party has been partly successful in this Court there will be no order as to costs in this Court.