IDANRE LOCAL GOVERNMENT & ANOR V. DEJI OF AKURE LAND & 5 ORS (2024)

Background

This was an interlocutory appeal arising from a longstanding land and local government boundary dispute in Ondo State. The substantive action, commenced at the High Court of Ondo State in 1992, was brought by the Deji of Akure Land, Akure South Local Government and Akure North Local Government against, among others, Idanre Local Government and representatives of the Ondo State Government. The plaintiffs sought recognition and enforcement of earlier judgments delivered in 1943 and 1950, which they contended established that extensive areas of land in Akure District, including areas occupied by members of the Idanre community, belonged to Akure. They also sought declarations concerning local government boundaries, control of land, customary tributes, allocation of revenue and the validity of administrative maps used by the State.

After the death of the original first plaintiff, Oba Atayese Adebobajo Adesida IV, the plaintiffs applied to substitute his name with “The Deji of Akure Land,” described as suing for himself and on behalf of the people of Akure land. The trial court allowed the amendment. The appellants and some co-defendants subsequently challenged the competence of the proceedings on several grounds, including limitation, lack of jurisdiction, improper constitution of the action, want of locus standi, absence of a reasonable cause of action, laches and acquiescence, and the contention that “Deji of Akure Land” was not a juristic person.

The trial court agreed that the title “Deji of Akure Land” was not itself a juristic person, because it was not a statutory creation. However, rather than striking out the action, it granted leave for the name of the current holder of the traditional stool to be added. The Court of Appeal affirmed the result, although it observed that the trial court had technically erred by substituting a juristic person with a non-juristic person. It nevertheless held that the appellants had not demonstrated prejudice or a miscarriage of justice. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether the Court of Appeal, having found that “Deji of Akure Land” was a non-juristic person, ought to have struck out the first respondent and the entire action.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to dismiss the appeal despite resolving its principal issue in favour of the appellants and awarding costs to them.
3. Whether the Court of Appeal breached the appellants’ right to fair hearing by declining to determine other jurisdictional and preliminary objections at the interlocutory stage.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The Court accepted the general principle that a plaintiff must possess juristic personality in order to institute and maintain an action. A non-existent or non-juristic person cannot ordinarily sue or be sued, and the question may affect the jurisdiction of the court. Nevertheless, the Court held that procedural rules and the overriding objective of substantial justice permit the correction of the defect where the identity of the parties and the subject matter are clear and the opposing parties have not been misled or prejudiced.

The trial court was entitled under Order II, rule 5(1) of the Ondo State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2006 to direct that the present holder of the traditional stool be added as a proper juristic party. The amendment did not alter the nature of the claim or create uncertainty about the persons represented. Striking out the title would have elevated a curable procedural irregularity above the substantive dispute and potentially defeated the claims of the people represented by the traditional institution.

The Court also held that a single competent ground of appeal is sufficient to sustain an appeal. It classified the appellants’ first ground as a ground of law, while treating the remaining original grounds as grounds of mixed law and fact requiring leave. The competent ground nevertheless preserved the appeal. Further, grounds of appeal must arise from the ratio decidendi of a decision and not merely from an obiter dictum. In this case, the relevant passage contained sufficient ratio to support the ground.

Court Findings

The Court rejected the argument that the Court of Appeal’s failure to strike out the first respondent automatically invalidated the proceedings. Although an intermediate appellate court ordinarily has a duty to consider all issues submitted to it, that duty is not absolute. In a clear case, the court may decline to determine additional issues where doing so would require it to enter prematurely into the merits of a pending substantive action. The Court of Appeal was therefore justified in refusing to pronounce on objections relating to limitation, laches, jurisdiction and other matters that had not been necessary for resolving the interlocutory appeal.

The Supreme Court further found no breach of fair hearing. The appellants knew the identity of the parties and the community represented, and they failed to show any specific prejudice, inconvenience or miscarriage of justice arising from the amendment. The Court emphasised that litigation should not become an exercise in technical ambush or procedural gamesmanship where the real dispute can still be determined on its merits.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision delivered on 9 December 2009 and directed the parties to return to the High Court of Ondo State for determination of Suit No. AK/181/92 on its merits. The decision did not finally determine ownership of the disputed land, local government boundaries or entitlement to revenue; it concerned the competence of the proceedings and the propriety of correcting the name and representation of the first plaintiff.

Significance

The decision reinforces the distinction between a substantive absence of legal capacity and a procedural defect capable of correction by amendment. It confirms that courts should protect the integrity of proceedings while avoiding technical decisions that do not cause injustice. It also provides useful guidance on identifying grounds of law, mixed law and fact, the minimum requirement that one competent ground can sustain an appeal, and the limited circumstances in which an intermediate appellate court may decline to address every issue raised by the parties.