From @General_Oluchi on X-(Formerly-Twitter)

I don’t know about you, but every evening, I get to play the honorable judge at home.

My son filed a petition against his sister with my honorable court, and his sister replied with shocking evidence. I am deliberating and will soon give my judgment because the silver white
toy car belongs to one of them although someone is claiming it with hot tears. The toy is in my possession since no one wants to compromise.

..
.

The arguments to review are:

1. The toy belongs to the petitioner but the respondent loves playing with it.

2. The petitioner doesn’t play with the toy often but only wants to hold it when the respondent is playing with it.

3. Who should keep the toy? The owner or the one who loves playing with it?

You see, this is a tough case.

Source:
https://twitter.com/General_Oluchi/status/1694899224083677230

Guys..




Please don't derail this thread.

Just Read And Give Your Decision.

interest or no interest the toy belongs to the original owner....case dismissed

The one who loves playing with it, she needs it more than the owner
The owner is just being petty for always wanting to hold it each time the other wants to play with it. Teach the owner how to let go off things he no longer needs especially when there's someone who is in need of such things.

The petitioner is just like our proverbial Politicians who love to amass Fleet of cars without using them and they dont want others to make use.

I think the judge should provide a Palliative for the respondent to cushion the effect of withdrawal of the car, cos it truely belong to the petitioner.

IconicR, try to be productive,
u are jobless,
Always on this forum. 24/7

Daddyseun1:
IconicR, try to be productive,
u are jobless,
Always on this forum. 24/7

But why are you monitoring me?

So if I own a car and don't drive it, it is right for another to lay claim on my car??

There is no case here...the owner is the owner unless he gives permission to another to enjoy his property.

Lemme go and occupy Gen. Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida's house behind NDA Base Camp Jos. which has been empty since 1990s

So help me God

As counsel to respondent the property was bought for the petitioner, with national wealth.since he has out grown it your lordship should use your honor to stop the petitioner not to disturb my client and she should take ownership of the item henceforth.

There is no case here, the toy outrightly belong to the petitioner.

The respondent should be heavily fine for wanting to claim the petitioner property or sent to juvenile prison for attempted theft.

court!!!

So i should give my money to my brother because he need them and i'm not using them at the moment.... which can ye ye play be that...

Your honor
Just send both of them to jail
Case closed

How did the petitioner came in possession of the said disputed property?

By Acquisition or inheritance or gifted?

Give the owner his property, let him make decision whether to release it to the defendant or not. na so corruption dey take start o, why will you be crying o something that is not yours just because you wants it

BluntCrazeMan:
From @General_Oluchi on X-(Formerly-Twitter)


..
.


Source:
https://twitter.com/General_Oluchi/status/1694899224083677230

AllEyesOnTheJudiciary. We the masses are observing with keen interest. PowerToThePeople

Please moderators should move this topic to front page, I am learning here.

Intelligent people plenty for Nairaland.

English hard ooo
I thought you said your son and the sister(your daughter)

What is there to say, your son is the petitioner while your daughter is the respondant.

Since it's a family issue and taking it outside the court, You know who owns the car. Just give the owner and buy anyone for other person

Daddyseun1:
IconicR, try to be productive,
u are jobless,
Always on this forum. 24/7

Calling someone jobless
You that's filled with jobs why not give him a job

IconicR

BluntCrazeMan:
Guys..




Please don't derail this thread.

Just Read And Give Your Decision.

For the owner is a pride issue. What he needs is an affirmation that he is the owner. Once you settle the ego he will release the toy.

Solution, the judge should affirm that the petitioner is the owner and request the petitioner to kindly release the toy for the respondent to play with. The respondent should repay that magnanimity with a generous 'thank you'

philGeo:
Please moderators should move this topic to front page, I am learning here.

Intelligent people plenty for Nairaland.

Lalasticlala, Seun, Nlfpmod

philGeo:
Please moderators should move this topic to front page, I am learning here.

Intelligent people plenty for Nairaland.

Mynd44

Irrespective of who likes to play with it or not, whom the toy belongs to, should be given back the toy...
Let them know the meaning of ownership and possession... Once something belongs to someone, it doesn't matter if the person uses it or not, the fact remains that it belongs to that person...
And as parent, try not to cause discord unknowingly between your children by favouring one with toy and not the other...
Let each of them have theirs....
If they are twins, buy thesame...
If they aren't, buy something different and let them know which belongs to them ....
The cries of the respondent isn't a prerequisite to possess that which doesn't belong to them!!!!

There is loving in sharing. But their is also peace in having your own.

1k likes

Puss360:

Let them know the meaning of ownership and possession... Once something belongs to someone, it doesn't matter if the person uses it or not, the fact remains that it belongs to that person...

Gbam....

And as parent, try not to cause discord unknowingly between your children by favouring one with you and not the other...
Let each of them have theirs....
If they are twins, but thesame...
If they aren't buy something different and let them know which belongs to them

BluntCrazeMan:
From @General_Oluchi on X-(Formerly-Twitter)


..
.


Source:
https://twitter.com/General_Oluchi/status/1694899224083677230

madam get the respondent his own toy...case close

BluntCrazeMan:
Guys..

Please don't derail this thread.

Just Read And Give Your Decision.

The correct decision is that the toy should be granted to the respondent because a toy is meant to be played with and the petitioner has by his/her conduct showed that she is not interested in the toy.

Secondly, by The Law of unlawful deprivation and waste, she is therefore deprived from withholding possession of the toy, on the ground that The Law shall not allow a wrong to be done.

Thus, the honorable court must thereby order that the defendant be perpetually restrained from taking the toy from the respondent.

libertyfather:
interest or no interest the toy belongs to the original owner....case dismissed

CaptMarvel:
Give the owner his property, let him make decision whether to release it to the defendant or not. na so corruption dey take start o, why will you be crying o something that is not yours just because you wants it

The case is not about ownership and the petition does not have a right of ownership (only a grant which can be revoked and granted.to another) which is why the toy has been validly returned to the owner, the parents.

That is why the respondent has a right to bring an action against the petitioner and the action is laid to the owner

So, the case is must be sub judice.

Simply buy same toy for the respondent

Case closed.

Jovialjune1:
Simply buy same toy for the respondent

Case closed.

kestolove95:
madam get the respondent his own toy...case close

Puss360:
Irrespective of who likes to play with it or not, whom the toy belongs to, should be given back the toy...
Let them know the meaning of ownership and possession... Once something belongs to someone, it doesn't matter if the person uses it or not, the fact remains that it belongs to that person...

See why you people get what you.get and why you don't get justice? Because you people do not do justice but always seek shortcut. Which is what your politicians and judges lay on you people. And that is why there is no justice in this country.

Dtruthspeaker:


See why you people get what you.get and why you don't get justice? Because you people do not do justice but always seek shortcut. Which is what your politicians and judges lay on you people. And that is why there is no justice in this country.

So buying what people crave for so that there would be peace means shortcut?

There is high inflation right now, unemployment, high food price and people are crying over basic needs, if government provides these things, things they themselves enjoy on a platter, is that shortcut? Is that not a good thing?

Jovialjune1:

So buying what people crave for so that there would be peace means shortcut?

Yes!

There is high inflation right now, unemployment, high food price and people are crying over basic needs, if government provides these things, things they themselves enjoy on a platter, is that shortcut? Is that not a good thing?[/quote]

Now you are making excuses just like your politicians and you did not remember when you were saying buy another one, so you see yourself.