Case review of UMORU V. IJUMU LOCAL GOVERNMENT COUNCIL PAGE 1 EDOHOEKET V. INYANG PAGE 25 IGWE V. EZEANOCHIER PAGE 61

1. CASE REVIEW OF
(2010) 7 N.W.L.R. (PT. 1192)
BY
EJEME IKEKHUA

2. SYNOPSIS
 TABLE OF CASES
 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
 ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
 ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL
 DECISION
 COMMENTS/CONCLUSION

3. TABLE OF CASES
 UMORU V. IJUMU LOCAL GOVERNMENT
COUNCIL PAGE 1
 EDOHOEKET V. INYANG PAGE 25
 IGWE V. EZEANOCHIER PAGE 61

4. CASE NO.1
UMORU V. IJUMU LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
COUNCIL
PAGE 1

5. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
 The appellant instituted an action against the respondent at the lower court
and sought inter alia an order for the return to the appellant of the 130G Cat
Grader detained by the respondents at Esubu check point in okene, Kogi
State or payment of the sum of N50,000 being the cost of transporting the
grader from Ogidi to Okene; the sum of N2,940,000.00 (Two Million Nine
Hundred And Forty Thousand Naira) only being the appellants daily loss of
income from 17/12/2003 which was the date the appellant was wrongfully
prevented from removing his grader to 21/2/2004.
 The appellant’s case was based on detinue. The appellant hired his
Caterpillar Grader to PW3 on behalf of Masters Concepts Limited for 9 (nine)
days .
 The 2nd respondent acting as an agent of the 1st respondent refused to allow
the appellant to remove his grader.
 The trial court dismissed the appellants claim and dissatisfied the appellant
appealed to the court of appeal contending that the trial court was wrong to
hold that the appellant could not recover against the respondent because
there was no privity of contract.

6. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
 ISSUES DECIDED BY CA
. Whether it was necessary for the plaintiff to establish privity of
contract between the defendants and himself before this
action, which is founded in tort, can succeed.
. Whether from the totality of the evidence adduced at the trial of
this case, the plaintiff had established a case of detinue
against the defendants.
. Whether having regards to settled principles of law relating to
award of damages in detinue, the quantum of damages
awarded by the learned trial judge in the case is correct?
. Whether the learned trial judge had properly evaluated the
evidence adduced by the parties at the trial of this case.

7. ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL
 ISSUE ONE: the appellant can claim against the respondent
even though there is no privity of contract because his action
is based on wrongful detention of his chattel
 ISSUE 2: the appellant stated that a case of detinue was
established and stated the ingredients. The respondent said
he did not establish ownership so the action must fail.
 ISSUE 3: The quantum of damages awarded by the trial judge
was not correct.
 ISSUE 4 : The appellant submitted that the learned trial judge
did not properly evaluate the evidence adduced before him.

8. DECISION
1. The action is founded in tort known as detinue
and so the doctrine of privity of contract is
irrelevant and does not apply
2. The court found that the plaintiff had
established a case of detinue against the
defendant.
3. The court of appeal disagreed with the learned
trial judge on some parts of the claim and
resolved this issue in favour of the appellant.
4. The court of appeal then set aside the findings
made by the trial judge.
 .

9. COMMENTS/CONCLUSION
 I agree with the judgment
 Even though the appellant was not a privy to
the contract with the respondents that
cannot preclude him from claiming the
remedies sought especially since his action is
not based on the contract.

10. CASE NO. 2
EDOHOEKET V. INYANG
PAGE 25

11. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
 The respondent’s late father in 1958 asked his sister the former 1st defendant to help
him buy a piece of land in Eket for which he sent her money.
 The respondent’s late father put his half bro PW2 in charge of the construction work .
 Unfortunately the respondents father died in the 1962 while the respondent was still
so young so the family put the former 1st defendant in charge of the property to be
held by her in trust for the respondent and his siblings and that the proceeds of rent
be used to carter for them.
 Later in 1983 the former 1st defendant laying claims to the property wanted to write a
will on how the property is to be shared this was opposed by the respondent who
informed elders of the family.
 Years later the respondent realized that the former 1st defendant had surreptitiously
and through misrepresented facts acquired the certificate of occupancy on the said
land
 Hence the respondent brought this action that the certificate of occupancy was null
and void having being obtained by misrepresentation and for an order declaring the
plaintiff the owner of the land and perpetual injunction restraining the defendants
 The court granted all the reliefs sought by the plaintiff and also granted some
unclaimed reliefs in favour of the defendant
 Aggrieved the appellant appealed and the respondents also cross appealed

12. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
 Whether the plaintiff proved his case
beyond the preponderance of evidence to
warrant the declaration made by the TC.
 Whether the TJ was right to give 5 rooms to
the appellant when based on the
evidence, declared the respondent as the
owner.
 Whether the TJ was right to grant 5 rooms
to the defendant without a counter claim
for declaration or partitioning.

13. ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL
 ON ISSUES 1
. Appellant : the plaintiff is to rise and fall on the strength of his case
and not on the weakness of the defence.
. Respondent: proved his case beyound reasonable doubt. Failure to
cross examine means admission.
 ON ISSUE 2 &3
. Appellant: Exhibit B which is based on arbitration which the
court relied upon was admitted in error because it created title in
land & was not registered, was not signed by the appellants, they
both relied on receipt as proof of ownership
. Respondent: trial court went outside the reliefs sought by
either of the parties to grant the 5 rooms to the appellant
especially since it had made a declaration in favour of the
respondent. Also the courts order is null & void because it is not
based on any relief sought

14. DECISION
 The court of appeal upheld the decision of
the trial court that the certificate of
occupancy obtained by the deceased former
1st defendant is null and void, having being
obtained by misrepresentation of facts.
 On the cross appeal the court of appeal
held that it is trite law that the courts do not
grant to the plaintiff or counter claimants a
remedy which has not been claimed and
established by the pleadings and evidence

15. COMMENTS/CONCLUSION
 I agree with the decision of the CA dismissing
the appeal and upholding the cross appeal on
the grounds that the court is not a charitable
organization and would only grant reliefs that
have been sought.

16. CASE NO. 3
IGWE V. EZEANOCHIER
PAGE 61

17. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
 The Appellants filed the substantive application for
the enforcement of their fundamental rights to
freedom of association, freedom of
movement, freedom of expression, and right to
dignity of their persons.
 The trial court held that the main issue in the
appellants case was where to pay their security levy
rather than the breach of their fundamental rights.
 It therefore dismissed the application on the grounds
that it was improperly commenced under the
Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules.
 Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, the
appellants appealed to the court of appeal.

18. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
 The CA formulated 2 issues for determination
but took both together since they were inter
related:
 Issue 1: Whether the appellant’s complaint was
properly brought under the Fundamental
Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules and
thereby entitled to the reliefs sought. (ground 1
and 5)
. Issue 2: Whether the appellants complain was
about where to make payment of security levy
rather than breach of their fundamental rights
(ground 3 of the ground of appeal)

19. ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL
 Appellants:
 A close look at the reliefs sought by the appellant shows
that the substantial reliefs sought is the enforcement of
the Fundamental Rights of the appellant and not the
dispute over where to pay security levy. EFR is the main
relief sought and not the ancillary relief.
 Respondent:
 The respondents counsel on his part contended that the
dispute between the parties was where the appellants
should pay their security levy and this controversy cannot
be subject of enforcement of fundamental rights but an
ordinary writ of summons.

20. DECISION
CA:
 The court therefore held that the appellant’s
complaint was properly brought under the
Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure)
Rules and are entitled to the reliefs sought being
that their complaint was about the infringement
of their fundamental rights by the respondents
rather than where to make payment for security
levy.
 The appeal was considered meritorious and it
succeeded and the judgment of the trial court
was set aside. And the reliefs sought by the
appellant against the respondents were also
granted.

21. COMMENTS/CONCLUSION
 I agree with the CA’s decision
especially since the facts in
support of the application at the
TC showed that appellant’s
actually proved the infringement
of their fundamental right and it
was wrong for the TC say it was
based on where to pay levy.