Between
and
1. ALHAJI ABBAS MOBOLAJI
2. ALHAJI YISA OLORUNKEMI
3. ALHAJI TAIRU AKINOLA
(For themselves and on behalf of the Eleso Family of Ijanikin)
JUDGMENT
(DELIVERED BY SULEIMAN GALADIMA, JSC)
I have had the benefit of reading in draft the leading judgment of my learned brother OGUNBIYI, JSC just delivered. Issues relevant for the determination of the appeal have been exhaustively dealt with. I do not have much to add except to agree with the reasoning and conclusion leading to the decision that the appeal is lacking in merit and should be dismissed.
In this case the Amended Statement claim incorporated the Writ of Summons by reference. Therefore it was a valid claim and the trial court was right to have entertained same. In OKOMU OIL PALM CO. LTD v ISERHIENRHIEN (2001) 5 NWLR (Pt. 710), 660 at P. 681, this court considered the provision of Order 13 Rule 7 of the High Court of the then Bendel State, (Civil Procedure) Rules of 1976, which are similar to Order 18 Rules 2, 3, and 4 of the High Court of Lagos State Civil Procedure Rule, 1994. The provisions required that the Statement of Claim shall state specifically the relief which the plaintiff claims either simply or in the alternative. This court per UWAIFO, JSC at page 681 (supra) held thus:
"Once there is such incorporation the Statement of Claim is taken to contain the relief stated in the writ, which statement of claim would otherwise be defective and contrary to the requirement of Order 13 Rule 7 reproduced above".
The position of this court in the issue was further made clearer in GARAN v OLOMU (2013) 11 NWLR (PT. 1365) 227 at 250, after considering and distinguishing the authority of ENIGBOKAN v AJJCO. NIG PLC (1994) 6 NWLR (Pt. 348) which relied on the decision in UDECHKWU v OKWUKA (1956) IPSC 70, held as follows:
"Once there is connectivity between the process that was first in time and subsequently process the latter cannot be rightly said to have superseded the former for supersession of an earlier process by a subsequent process to occur, there must be a complete disconnect between the two imposed by the fact of the one completely occupying the place or role of the other".
In view of the foregoing, to accede to the Appellants' proposing would be to succumb to the era of perpetuating technical justice, and to say that the Respondent had abounded their reliefs claimed in the Amended Writ of Summons on the principle that the Statement of Claim supersedes the Writ of Summons.
It is for the above reasons and the more detailed reasons contained in the leading judgment that I too find no merit in the appeal and dismiss it accordingly. I abide by the orders made including that on costs.
Appeal dismissed.
NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA, JSC:
I had the privilege of reading in draft the lead judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Ogunbiyi, JSC, 1 agree with the reasoning and conclusion leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
I will add to what His Lordship has said on the statement of law that "the statement of claim supersedes the Writ. The writ controls the statement of claim in the sense that the latter must confine itself to the cause of action endorsed in the former (the Writ). Subject to the above control, the statement of claim, once filed supersedes the Writ of Summons. This means that where there are two different averments, one in the Writ of Summons and the other in the Statement of Claim, the averment in the Statement of Claim will override the one in the Writ of Summons.
Any matter mentioned in the claim endorsed in the Writ which is omitted in the Statement of Claim is deemed abandoned. See Udechukwu v. Okwuku (1956) 1 FJC 70.
Appellants' case is that the respondents, by claiming "as per their Writ of Summons" have abandoned the claim endorsed on the Writ. In my view, by so pleading the Respondents cannot be said to have abandoned the claim in the Writ. They did not make two different averments, one in the Writ and one in the Statement of Claim. Rather, by claiming "as per the Writ of Summons" they adopted their claim in the Writ of Summons in their Statement of Claim.
For the above and the fuller reasons in the lead judgment I also dismiss the appeal for want of merit, I abide by the order for costs.
KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, JSC:
This appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, delivered on 29/3/2007 setting aside the judgment of the High Court of Lagos State sitting at the Badagry Judicial Division delivered on 21/6/2004 dismissing the plaintiffs/respondents claims in their entirety and allowing the counter claim of the defendants/appellants in part.
By their writ of summons filed on 26/9/2001, which was subsequently amended vide their amended writ of summons dated 5th May 2003, the respondents in this appeal, as plaintiffs sought the following reliefs:
(i). A DECLARATION that the 1st plaintiff being the family head and other principal members of Eleso Chieftaincy Family of Ijanikin Lagos State are entitled to manage, superintend or otherwise deal with the landed property of Eleso Chieftaincy Family including the disputed land for themselves and on behalf of and in trust for the entire member of Eleso Chieftaincy Family of Ijanikin.
(ii) PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, workmen and privies from disturbing or inhibiting the Family Head and the principal members of Eleso family of Ijanikin from the management and control of the family land including the dispute land.
(iii) PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, workmen and privies from further acts of trespass, that is, from excavating sand from the land of the family and from interfering with the rights and interests of purchasers of Ilosu branch of Eleso family to whom Efeso family has made various sales and/or grants of parcels of land.
(iv) AN ORDER for N200,000.00 against the defendants for the various acts of trespass already committed by them."
In their Amended statement of claim at page 61 of the record, they claimed as follows:
"WHEREOF the plaintiffs claim against the defendants as per the Writ of Summons.
The appellants herein, as defendants joined issues with the respondents in their pleading and filed an Amended Statement of Defence and counter-claim. The suit proceeded to trial with oral and documentary evidence led on either side. In a considered judgment, the trial court granted the plaintiffs'/respondents' claims in their entirety and granted the defendants'/appellants' counter claim in part.
Dissatisfied with the judgment, the plaintiffs/respondents appealed to the court below. The judgment of the trial court was set aside. The court entered judgment in favour of the respondents "as per their claims in the endorsed amended writ of summons" and proceeded to enumerate the claims as endorsed therein.
Not surprisingly, the appellants were dissatisfied with the judgment and have further appealed to this court. The issues in contention have been reproduced in the lead judgment, I must, at this stage, state that I have had the opportunity of reading in draft the judgment of my learned brother, CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI, JSC just delivered. I agree entirely that this appeal lacks merit and should be dismissed.
In support of the lead judgment, I wish to say a few words on the first issue for determination, which is:
Whether the lower court had jurisdiction to consider the statement of claim of the claimants/respondents and grant the reliefs claimed in the writ of summons when the same had been abandoned by the plaintiffs?
In a nutshell, it is the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that by virtue of the provisions of Order 18 Rule 2 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 1994 (or Order 16 Rule 2 of the 2004 Rules) and numerous decisions of this court, where the respondents pleaded that they claimed "as per the Amended writ of Summons", they had in effect abandoned the reliefs claimed in their Amended Writ of Summons on the principle that the statement of claim supersedes the writ of summons. Heavy reliance was placed on the recent decision of this court in David Stowe & Anor. Vs Godswill Benstowe & Anor. (2012) 9 NWLR (Pt.1306) 450.
On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that a statement of claim would only supersede the writ of summons where there is a distinct relief in the statement of claim which is not contained in the writ of summons. Learned counsel referred to Enigbokan Vs A.I.I.CO. Nig.) Plc. (19941 6 NWLR (Pt.348) 1: Garan Vs Olomu (2013) 11 NWLR (Pt.1365) 227 @ 253. He contends that to accede to the appellants' proposition would be to do gross violation to the decided authorities on the issue. He submitted further that the era of technical justice is no more and maintained that the respondents did not in any way abandon their reliefs.
The writ of summons being the originating process in a suit represents the foundation of the action,. That foundation is built upon by the statement of claim. The writ of summons being the original building plan can be modified in the final execution. Thus, as Belgore, JSC (as he then was) observed in his concurring judgment in Daniel Holdings Ltd. Vs U.B.A. Plc (2005) 13 NWLR (Pt.943) 533 @ 551 C - F, once a statement of claim is filed, what was not in the writ of summons may be inserted therein. In the same vein, what appeared in the writ of summons but was omitted in the statement of claim is deemed to have been abandoned. For a statement of claim to supersede the writ of summons however, it must be completely severed from the writ of summons. In Okomu Oil Palm Co. Ltd. Vs Iserhienrhien (2001) 6 NWLR (Pt.710) 660 @ 681 C - F this court considered the provisions of Order 13 Rule 7 of the High Court of Bendel State (Civil Procedure) Rules 1976 which are similar to Order 18 Rules 2, 3 & 4 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 1994, which require inter alia, that every statement of claim shall state specifically the relief which the plaintiff claims either simply or in the alternative.
It was held in that case that where the statement of claim does not contain a specific relief but "claims as per writ of summons" the reference therein to the writ of summons makes the statement of claim complete by incorporating the writ, thereby making the writ a part of it. It was held per Uwaifo, JSC at page 681 E - F (supra):
"Once there is such incorporation the statement of claim is taken to contain the relief stated in the writ, which statement of claim would otherwise be defective and contrary to the requirement of Order 13 Rule 7 reproduced above.
In Garan Vs Olomu (2013) 11 NWLR (Pt.1365) 227 @ 250 F H, this court after considering and distinguishing the authority of Enigbokan Vs A.I.I.C.O. Nig. Ltd (supra), which relied on the decision in Udechukwu Vs Okwuka (1956) 1 FSC 70: (1956) SCNLR 189, held thus:
"Once there is connectivity between the process that was first in time and the subsequent process, the latter cannot be rightly said to have superseded the former for supersession of an earlier process by a subsequent process to occur, there must be a complete disconnect between the two imposed by the fact of the one completely occupying the place or role of the other."
That is not the case here. I hold that the amended statement of claim in the instant case, having incorporated the writ of summons by reference, is a valid claim and the trial court was right to have entertained it. I am of the view that the authorities of Okomu Oil Palm Co. Ltd. Vs Iserhienrhien (supra) and Garan Vs Olomu (supra) best reflect the position of this court in doing substantial justice.
My learned brother has very ably considered and resolved all the issues in contention in this appeal. I agree with and adopt the reasoning and conclusions as mine. I also find no merit in the appeal and dismiss it accordingly. I abide by the consequential orders made in the lead judgment including the order as to costs.
JOHN INYANG OKORO, JSC:
My learned brother, CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI, JSC obliged me a copy of the judgment he has just delivered which I read before now. He has meticulously and quite efficiently resolved all the salient issues nominated for the determination of this appeal. I agree with the reasons marshaled and the conclusion that this appeal lacks merit and deserves an order of dismissal. The facts of this case are well encapsulated in the lead judgment and I need not repeat the exercise here. I shall chip in a few words of mine in support of the judgment only.
The learned counsel for the appellants in the first issue had argued that the lower court had no jurisdiction to consider the statement of claim of the claimants/respondents and grant the reliefs claimed in the writ of summons when the same had been abandoned by the plaintiffs. Contrary to the submissions of the appellants, the respondents submitted that they did not abandon their reliefs but incorporated same by reference into their amended statement of claim.
On page 61 of the record of appeal, the respondents in paragraph 22 of their amended statement of claim stated as follows:
"22 WHEREOF the plaintiffs claim against the Defendants as per the writ of summons.
The said claims on the writ of summons can be found on page 30 of the record. The ground for the appellants' contention is that the court below lacked the jurisdiction to have entered judgment for the Respondents because there was no relief which the court below could grant the statement of claim having superseded the writ. The respondents submitted that while it is correct that a statement of claim supersedes the writ of summons, for a statement of claim to supersede the writ there must be distinct relief in the statement of claim which is not contained in the writ of summons. Where this is lacking, the principle that a statement of claim supersedes the writ of summons would not apply, relying on Enigbokan V A.IICo (Nig) Plc (1994) 6 NWLR (Pt. 348) 1, Daniel Holdings Ltd V UBA Plc (2005) 13 NWLR (Pt. 943) 533, Garan V Olomu (2013) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1365) 227.
Without much ado, I am in agreement with the respondents in this matter. There is no doubt regarding the statement of law that a statement of claim supersedes the writ of summons. But this is not absolute. For a statement of claim to supersede the writ of summons, it must not only disclose a cause of action, it must also state what is being claimed and not merely claiming "as per the writ of summons". See Chief J. O. Lahan & ors V R. Lajoyetan & ors (1972) 6 SC 106, Enigbokan V A. 11 Co Nig Ltd (1994) 6 NWLR (Pt. 348) 1, Keshinro V Bakare (1967) 1 All NLR 280 at 284. Nta V Anigbo (1972) 5 SC 156.
In the recent case of Garan V Olomu (supra) at page 250, this court held that:-
"A process is said to supersede another if it is subsequent to and completely severed from that other. Once there is interconnectivity between the process that was first in time and the subsequent process, the later cannot be rightly said to have superseded the former. For supersession of an earlier process to occur, there must be a complete disconnect between the two imposed by the fact of one completely occupying the place or role of the other."
Now, comparing the writ of summons on page 30 of the record with the statement of claim, particularly paragraph 22 thereof, it clearly shows that what the statement of claim did was to incorporate the writ of summons into the amended statement of claim by reference. In the circumstance, both the writ of summons and the statement of claim are together for the purpose of the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs (now respondents).
From what I have said above, it is clear that the respondents never abandoned the reliefs sought before the court. I agree with the learned counsel for the respondents when he argued that once a statement of claim is filed, the writ of summons goes into oblivion where the statement of claim makes no reference to the writ of summons. However, where the statement of claim makes reference to the writ, it incorporates the reliefs by reference into the statement of claim. This is what happened in this case. See Okomu Oil Palm Company Plc V Iserhienrhien (2001) 6 NWLR (Pt. 710) 660 at 681 and Daniel Holdings Ltd V UBA Plc (supra) For the avoidance of doubt, the respondents never abandoned their reliefs and as such the court below was right when it entered judgment for them on those reliefs on the writ of summons incorporated into the amended statement of claim by reference.
For the above reasons, and the fuller ones well adumbrated in the lead judgment, I agree that this appeal lacks merit. It is hereby dismissed by me. I abide by the consequential orders made in the lead judgment, that relating to costs, inclusive.
CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI, JSC:
The Appellants' appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Judicial Division, delivered on the 29th March, 2007. The Court of Appeal in a considered judgment upheld the main appeal filed by the Respondents; set aside the judgment of the High Court of Lagos State and dismissed the cross appeal filed by the present Appellants. The Respondents were the Plaintiffs while the Appellants were Defendants/Counter Claimants at the trial court. At the Court of Appeal, the Respondents were the Appellants while the present Appellants were the Respondents/Cross Appellants.
BACKGROUND FACTS
This appeal is a land matter which was decided initially at the High Court of Lagos State, Badagry Judicial Division. At the trial court, the Respondents herein as the plaintiffs sued the appellants as the defendants and claiming the following reliefs:-
"i) A DECLARATION that the 1st plaintiff being the family head and other principal members of Eleso Chieftaincy Family of Ijanikin, Lagos State are entitled to manage, superintend or otherwise deal with the landed property of Eleso Chieftaincy family including the disputed land for themselves and on behalf of and in trust for the entire members of Eleso Chieftaincy family of Ijanikin,
ii) Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, servants, workmen and privies from disturbing or inhibiting the family head and the Principal members of Eleso family of Ijanikin from the management and control of the family land including the disputed land.
iii) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, workmen, and privies from further acts of trespass, that is from excavating sand from the land of the family and from interfering with the right and interest of purchasers and Ilosu branch of Eleso family to whom the Eleso family has made various sales and/or grants of parcels of land.
iv) An order for N200,000.00 against the defendants for the various acts of trespass already committed by them."
On their own part the appellants/counter claimed in their amended statement of defence and counter claim for the following reliefs:-
i) A declaration that the defendants ore persons entitled to the grant of the customary right of occupancy in respect of the land in dispute situate in Ijanikin, Ojo Local Government Area of Lagos State bounded by Era-Makon Road, the Era swamp and the Federal Government College and Akinola farmland more described in the survey plan No. SOSA/LAA/3771/96.
ii) An order revoking any power of attorney or any similar documents made by the plaintiffs or for anyone in respect of the land in dispute.
iii) An order setting aside any grant of whatever description made by the plaintiffs in respect of the land in dispute to any person however described.
iv) N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) as General and special damages for the acts of trespass committed by the plaintiff against the defendants and the land in dispute.
v) Perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiffs, their principals, agents, and privies from further acts of trespass against the land in dispute.
At the trial court, four witnesses testified for the respondents while the appellants called eight witnesses in defence of their claims and proof of their counter claim. At the conclusion of the hearing, the learned trial judge in his considered judgment on 21st June, 2004 dismissed and rejected the traditional evidence adduced by both the respondents and the appellants. Consequently, the judge dismissed both their claims based on their title or ownership of the land in dispute. He however partially allowed or granted to the appellants their claims of damages for trespass (N50,000.00) and an injunction based on their being in current or recent possession of the land in dispute.
Being aggrieved by the finding and judgment of the trial judge, the respondents filed their notice of appeal against same before the lower court. The appellants were also dissatisfied with the said judgment and filed their notice of cross-appeal. The lower court upheld the main appeal filed by the respondents while dismissing the cross appeal by the appellants.
The appellants have therefore filed this appeal vide their further Amended Notice of Appeal dated and filed on the 9th September, 2013 and asking this court to set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
In line with the rules of this court's practice, both parties filed their respective briefs of arguments. Based on the further amended notice of appeal supra, the appellants filed an Amended Appellants' Brief of argument also dated and filed on 9th September, 2013 and settled by B. A. M. Fashanu, SAN. Correspondingly, the Amended Respondents' Brief was dated 24th and filed on the 27th January, 2014. The Brief was settled by one Olaniran Obelle, Esq. The appellants further filed a reply brief on the 27th February, 2014.
On the 26th April, 2016 when the appeal came up for hearing, both counsel adopted and relied on their respective briefs of arguments. While the appellants' counsel urges this court to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the lower court, the respondents' counsel however seeks the court's indulgence in favour of dismissing the appeal as lacking in merit.
From the 19 grounds of appeal raised, the appellants distilled four issues for determination and the same reproduced from their amended appellants' brief of argument are as follows: -
1) Whether the lower court had jurisdiction to consider the statement of claim of the claimants/respondents and grant the reliefs claimed in the writ of summons when the same had been abandoned by the plaintiffs? (Grounds 15, 16, 17, 18 & 19).
2) Whether the lower court was right in reversing the trial court's findings that the plaintiffs did not properly plead and prove traditional ownership of the land in dispute? (Grounds 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 10 & 12).
3) Whether it was within the province of the lower court, as an appellate court, to make findings of facts as to traditional history /ownership and possession in the circumstances of this case? (Grounds 4, 5, 9 & 11).
4) Whether the decision of the trial court for damages for trespass and injunction for the appellants ought to stand? (Grounds 8, 12 and 13).
Suffice it to say that ground 14 of the Ground of appeal is an omnibus ground.
On behalf of the respondents, their learned counsel raised four issues also in their amended respondents' brief of argument for the determination of this appeal. The issues are not different from those formulated on behalf of the appellants. I will, in the circumstance adopt serially the appellants' issues for the determination of the appeal herein.
1st ISSUE
Whether the lower court had jurisdiction to consider the statement of claim of the claimants/respondents and grant the reliefs claimed in the writ of summons, when the same had been abandoned by the plaintiffs?
It is the submission on behalf of the appellants' herein that with the Respondents' reliefs in their Amended Statement of Claim dated 5th May 2003 being, "as per their writ of summons", there was therefore no relief upon which the Court of Appeal could have exercised its jurisdiction in granting. In essence, according to the appellants, the court below lacked jurisdiction to grant the alleged abandoned reliefs of the respondents. In addition, the appellants submit that the respondents' defence to their counterclaim was void and/or defective for the reason that they essentially incorporated facts meant for their statement of claim in their reply and defence to the appellants' counterclaim. The appellants, amongst other authorities relied on the decision of this court in David Stowe & Anor V. Godswill Benstowe & Anor (2012) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1306) 450. In the circumstance, appellants contend that the respondents, having abandoned the reliefs which no longer reflected in their statement of claim, there was nothing to adjudicate upon and that the lower court ought to have struck-out the plaintiffs' suit as was done in the case of Stowe V. Benstowe (supra). Consequently therefore, counsel submits that all the evidence tendered for the plaintiffs at the trial, both oral and documentary should not hold of any effect; that in the absence of a competent statement of claim vis-a-vis reliefs, the lower court had no jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs as contained in the writ of summons. It is trite that a court cannot grant a relief not asked for by a party. In support of his submission, counsel cited the following cases of Obayagbona V. Obazee (1972) 7 NSCC 383 at 386; Ekpeyong V. Nyong (1975) 9 NSCC 28 at PP.32-33 and Odofin V. Agu (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt.229) 350 at PP. 369-370. In the circumstance, the court is urged to set aside the decision by the lower court in granting the reliefs claimed in the writ of summons and also strike out the suit of the plaintiffs in toto.
Contrary to the submissions on behalf of the appellants, the respondents' counsel contends that his clients did not abandon their reliefs but have incorporated same by reference into their Amended Statement of Claim. To agree with the appellants, counsel contends, would entail doing gross violence to the well established principle in the following decided cases on the subject matter. Enigbokan V. A.I.I.CO. (Nig) Plc (1994) 6 NWLR (Pt. 348) 1; Daniel Holdings Ltd V. UBA Plc (2005) 13 NWLR (943) 533 at 549, 551 and Garan V. Olomu (2013) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1365) 227 at 253. In further submission, counsel re-iterates that a claim is said to be abandoned when such a claim as stated in the writ of summons is left out of the statement of claim and no reference whatsoever is made to the writ of summons by incorporation in the statement of claim. See Enigbokan V. A.I.I.CO. (Nig) Plc. (supra) at 15; Counsel submits further that once a statement of claim is filed, the writ goes into oblivion where the statement of claim makes no reference to the writ of summons.
In further submission the respondents' counsel drew a sharp distinction between this case and the case of Stowe V. Benstowe (supra) and argues that, not only was the basis for the decision in that case different, it was also a decision based on technicality as against substantive justice; that an appellate court has a duty to do substantial justice between parties before it and not be bugged down by technicalities. See Anyegwu V. Onuche (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1129) 659 at 670 and Akpan V. Bob (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1223) 421 at 478-479.
The learned counsel in the circumstance and in the interest of substantial justice urges this court to resolve the said issue in favour of the respondents. Counsel further urges the court to discountenance the submissions in paragraphs C7 to C20 of the appellants' brief of argument which is a corollary to the 1st issue.
RESOLUTION OF THE 1st ISSUE
In summary, the appellants' submission on the 1st issue is challenging the jurisdiction of the court below.
The fact grounding the issue is, where the respondents in paragraph 22 of their Amended Statement of Claim claimed "as per their writ of summons." The appellants thereupon contend that the court below lacked the jurisdiction to have entered judgment for the respondents in the absence of any relief, since the statement of claim superseded the writ of summons.
As rightly submitted by the appellants' counsel, the general rule governing the principle of supersession of the statement of claim over the writ of summons is entrenched in our legal system provided only, that there must be distinct relief in the statement of claim which is not contained in the writ of summons. An example is the case of Enigbokan Vs. A. I. I. C. O. (Nig) Plc (1994) 6 NWLR (Pt. 348) l where this court had the occasion to consider the question as to when a statement of claim would supersede the writ of summons and said;-
"It is well settled that a statement of claim supersedes the writ of summons and must itself disclose a cause of action - Udechukwu V. Onwuka (1956) 1 FSC 70, 71, (1956) SCNLR 189; Otanioku V. Alli (1977) 11-12 SC 9. To supersede the writ however, the statement of claim must state what is being claimed and not merely claiming 'as per the writ of summons. Keshiro V. Bakare (1967) 1 ALL NLR 280. It follows that in order to supersede the writ, the statement of claim must contain a claim or claims therein set out - Nta V. Anigbo (1972) 5 SC. 156."
Also in the case of Garan V. Olomu (supra) at page 250, this court held and said:-
"A process is said to supersede another if it is subsequent to and completely severed from that other. Once there is interconnectivity between the process that was first in time and the subsequent process, the latter cannot be rightly said to have superseded the former. For supersession of an earlier process to occur, there must be a complete disconnect between the two imposed by the fact of one completely occupying the place or role of the other."
In applying the principle laid down in the case of Garan V. Olomu (supra) to the case under consideration, it is obvious that there is no disconnection between the Amended Statement of Claim and the Writ of Summons. Supersession comes in where there is complete severance by way of distinct relief in the latter (statement of claim) which is not contained in the former (writ of summons). As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, they have in practical terms incorporated the writ of summons into their Amended Statement of Claim by reference.
The appellants' counsel relied heavily on the provisions of Order 18 Rule 2 or Order 16 Rule 2 of the 1994 and 2004 Rules respectively. Further reference was made also to the case of David Stowe & Anor V. Godswill Benstowe & Anor (supra) upon which the appellants' counsel pitched his tent and argues that the plaintiffs herein, having abandoned the reliefs in their writ of summons by their statement of claim, there was therefore nothing to adjudicate further upon; and that the lower court ought to have struck out the plaintiffs' case on the authority of Stowe V. Benstowe (supra).
It is pertinent to restate at this point that while the case of Stowe V. Benstowe was decided in 2012, Garan V. Olomu was decided also by this court in 2013. In the case at hand, the appellants were fully aware of the reliefs being claimed by the respondents. They did not object to same as claimed until in 2013 in this court when they sought to further amend their notice of Appeal. The appellants have not also shown any evidence of miscarriage of justice done to them due to the responde