Law. Pavilion Electronic Law Report LPELRI. T. MUHAMMAD, JSC Delivering the Leading Judgment Paragraph 4. Elements Of Land Law 6Th Edition' title='Elements Of Land Law 6Th Edition' />High Court of Justice of Oyo State holden at Ibadan trial court reads as follows. WHEREOF the plaintiffs claims. The Torah t r t o r Hebrew, instruction, teaching is the central reference of Judaism. It has a range of meanings. AGAINST ALL THE DEFENDANTS. DECLARATION that the members of Oriare family of Oriare Compound are the persons entitled to apply for and granted the certificate of Statutory rights of occupancy in respect of a piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being at APETE AREA OF IBADAN excepting the areas already granted by the plaintiffs family absolutely and more particularly described and odgosic GREEN on PLAN NO. LW 5. 518. 7 of 2. L. LAYI ARINOLA licensed surveyor or Ibadan. INJUNCTION against the defendants, their heirs, agents and servants and all manner of persons that may be claiming through them from committing any act of trespass entering andor doing anything whatsoever with the said land. FIVE THOUSAND NAIRA N5,0. AGAINST THE 1st 4th defendants only. EarthByte New Archive. Janvier, P., 1996, Early Vertebrates, Clarendon Press, Oxford. Kumar, S. Hughes, S. B., 1998, A molecular time scale for vertebrate. Songs From The Wood is often referred to as one of the most commercially appealing Jethro Tull albums, containing elements of rock, prog and folkrock. Roman law The law of ancient Rome from the time of the founding of the city in 753 bce until the fall of the Western Empire in the 5th century ce. It remained in use. Forfeiture of the area edge sic PURPLE on the plaintiffs sic plan. Richard Castle Heat Wave Ebook Ita Torrent here. Possession of the said land. INJUNCTION restraining the said defendants from entering the said portion or doing anything or claiming any right that may affect the interest of the plaintiffs. Pleadings were settled. Hearing commenced and closed. Addresses by learned counsel for the respective parties were taken by the trial court. At the end, the learned trial Judge made several orders including grant, forfeiture, injunction etc. Some of the parties were dissatisfied with the trial courts decision. Notices of Appeals including cross appeals were, as a result, filed to the Ibadan Division of the Court of Appeal court below. The main appeal and the cross appeal were, each, partly allowed by the court below. The present appellants were dissatisfied with the portion which dismissed their appeal and they now appealed to this court. The cross appellants also challenged that portion of the lower courts decision with which they were dissatisfied. In this court, briefs were filed and exchanged. In his brief of argument the learned counsel for the appellants formulated two issues for consideration. They read as follows. Whether the Justices of the lower court were not wrong in not dismissing the 1st and 2nd Respondents claims against the 1st 4th appellants when their reliance was on a judgment used as issue estoppel when the conditions precedent to its application was not fulfilled and when the claims of the 1st and 2nd Respondents privies in the earlier case relied upon was dismissed against the named defendants therein on the same subject matter. Whether the Justices of the Court of Appeal were not wrong in still resolving appellants issue 4 before it against the Appellants when the court had earlier held that, It is my judgment that having not produced it, the RespondentsCross appellant did not establish that Oyebanji surrendered land to Oriare family. The 1st and 2nd respondents, who are the cross appellants, filed in one brief, both the 1st and 2nd respondents brief of argument as well as the cross appellants brief of argument. On the main appeal, they formulated two issues viz. Whether the trial court and the court below properly considered and applied issue estoppel in the determination of the case of the Plaintiffs against the 1st to 4th Defendants and their privies Ground 1 of the main Appeal. Whether the trial court and court below were right to have granted the plaintiffs case against the 6th, 7th and 9th defendants who are members of the Adaorugbo Family despite the failure of the Plaintiffs to tender the deed of surrender pleaded in paragraph 2. Best Ide To Program Php. Statement of Claim Ground 2 of the main Appeal. On the cross appeal, the cross appellants formulated issues for determination. The cross respondents, although there are two sets a appellantscross respondents and 3rd, 4th and 5th respondentscross respondents. The former did not file any brief of argument. The latter filed a brief in respect of the cross appeal. I shall consider the cross appeal later. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellants on issue 1 that the 1st and 2nd respondents as plaintiffs before the trial court, relied heavily on Exhibit P1, a judgment in suit No. Raji Ishola Oriare for himself and on behalf of Oriare Family v. Salami Adigun and 1. Ors. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants contention before the court below was that as far as EXB. P1 was concerned, parties therein were not the same as in this case. Further, the case in EXB P1 was not shown to have been defended in a representative capacity for the Oguntayo Apete Family by the named defendants therein. But the resolution and conclusion in law and fact according to the lower court amounted to issue estoppel and that the trial court applied sound principle of law. And as the earlier suit, Exhibit P1 was not brought against the defendants as family, the family could not be said to be a party to Exh. P1. The findings in the said Exh. P1 could not constitute estoppel as against the 1st 4th defendants family. Learned counsel cited the cases of Okoromaka v. Odiri 1. 99. 5 7 NWLR Pt. Brown v. Bassey 2. NWLR Pt. 6. 51 1 at 1. He submitted further that the learned Justices of the court below committed serious error of law by holding that Exhibit P1 constitutes estoppel in the present action and the error had occasioned a miscarriage of justice. Learned counsel for the appellants urged this court to allow the appeal on this issue and dismiss the plaintiffs claim against the 1st 4th defendants and their grantees and enter judgment in favor of the defendants. In his issue No. II the learned counsel for the appellants re stated the position of the law that he who asserts must prove. Where no evidence is led on pleading, the pleading is deemed to have been abandoned. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the averment in section 2. The 6th defendant also denied the alleged handing over of the existence of any document evidencing any act of surrender of the land in dispute by the Adarorugbos to the Oriares. He testified further that the portion of the land in dispute that was occupied by his family lawfully belonged to them by inheritance and not to the Oriare as claimed by the plaintiffsrespondents. Throughout the entire proceedings before the learned trial judge no document evidencing such a surrender was tendered as an exhibit before the court. The attempt made by the respondents to support the assertion in paragraph 2. The oral evidence not supported by pleaded document was speculative of plaintiffs claims that the 6th and 7th defendants were their ancestors customary tenants. Several authorities were cited by the learned counsel in support of his submissions. They include inter alia, the following Jiaza v. Bamgbose 1. 99. 1 7 NWLR Pt. F G Fatunde v. Onwoamanam 1. NWLR Pt. 1. 32 3. B C, section 9. 9 of the Evidence Act. Learned counsel argued that the respondents have failed not only to prove due execution of a document surrendering to them a parcel of land allegedly granted to the defendants as customary tenants, but have failed also to establish the existence of any document. He finally urged this court to allow the appeal in respect of the issue over which the lower court dismissed the appellants appeal before it.