The Appellant having so formulated and claimed the desired paregoric as the relief from the Court, the Court, the Appellant and all the parties became bound by the relief as framed as it is not the duty of the Court to grant any relief outside what had been claimed.
– Ogakwu, J.C.A. Fijabi v. FBN (2021)
SHARE ON
As rightly submitted by the Petitioners, the reliefs in this Petition, which I have reproduced at the beginning of this judgment, are undoubtedly sought in the alternative. The settled law is that reliefs can be sought in the alternative and where so sought by a party, he is at liberty to plead conflicting facts in line with the alternative reliefs he has sought. In ADIGHIJE V NWAOGU & ORS (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1209) 419 at 545, paras. E G; (2010) LPELR-4941(CA) at pages 14 – 16, paras. E G, this Court, per Ogunwumiju, JCA (as he then was, now JSC), held that: “…in civil litigation and indeed in election matters, a party can make two seemingly contradictory pleadings leading to two different heads of claim. That is why a petitioner can claim that the election be annulled for reason of substantial non-compliance and in the same breath claim that he won the election by a majority of lawful notes. A petitioner may plead the same set of facts to ground alternative reliefs. Those pleadings are not ipso facto held to be self-contradictory. The Court can only grant one relief as the party must decide which relief is best supported by the evidence on record.” See also: METAL CONSTRUCTION (W.A.) LTD v ABODERIN (1998) LPELR 1868(SC) at pages 26, paras. C E.
— H.S. Tsammani, JCA. Peter Obi & Anor. v INEC & Ors. (2023) – CA/PEPC/03/2023
✓ In IKUMA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION BENUE STATE & ORS (2012) LPELR-8621(CA) held that: “Declaratory reliefs are not granted as a matter of course but on credible evidence lead. This is so even where the other partly admits the claims. See David Fabunmi Vs Agbe (1985) 1NWLR (pt.2) 316.” Per TSAMIYA, J.C.A. (P. 22, para. A.
✓ For want of emphasis, the court in OYETUNJI v. AWOYEMI & ORS (2013) LPELR-20226(CA) also held that: “In line with the general burden of proof as stated above, it is equally trite that in a claim for a declaratory relief a claimant must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defence unless there is an aspect of the defendant’s case that supports his case. See: Mogaji v. Cadbury Nig. Ltd. (1985) 2 NWLR (7) 393 @ 429 D – E; Kodilinye v. Odu (1936) 2 WACA 336 @ 337; Onwugbufor v. Okoye (1996) 1 NWLR (424) 252; Shittu v. Fashawe (2005) 14 NWLR (946) 671.” Per KEKERE-EKUN, J.C.A. (as she then was) (P. 34, paras. C-E).
It must be emphasized that declaratory reliefs are not given just for the asking. A party seeking declaratory relief must satisfy the court by cogent and proven evidence that he is entitled to such declaration. It cannot be proved half way. Where parties, as in this case, are in agreement that the land in dispute is a family land or originally founded by a family, any party who claims exclusive ownership of the land or part thereof must fail unless he is able to plead and prove by evidence how that exclusive ownership or title devolves on him.
– Denton West JCA. Salaja v. Salaja (2013)
Declaratory relief is an equitable relief and whenever a court is asked to grant declaratory relief, the court is bound to apply equity in granting the same.
– Musdapher, JSC. Atta v. Ezeanah (2000)
I find this contention as highly misconceived and this is because a relief does not in law stand in isolation from the averments of the party seeking the reliefs and in my view relief no. 6 is rather clearly in tandem with the averment in paragraph 39 of the 1st – 4th Respondent Statement of Claim to the effect that the transaction between the 2nd-4th Respondents and the 1st Respondent in respect of their shares in the 5th Respondent was one of consolidation of their shares for effective management by the 1st Respondent.
— B.A. Georgewill JCA. Stanbic IBTC Bank Plc V. Longterm Global Capital Limited & Ors. (CA/L/427/2016, 9 Mar 2018)
DUMEZ (NIG) LTD VS NWAKAOBA & ORS. (2009) 12 S.C.M. (PT 2) 504 at 517 – 518 where the Supreme Court held that:- “It is both fundamental and elementary principle in the determination of actions before a court or tribunal, that the adjudicating body is bound to limit itself to the claims before it. A court may indeed make incidental orders which flow naturally from the relief claimed. However a court has no power and is not under any circumstances entitled to award a relief not claimed by the party in the writ of summons and the statement of claim.”
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry