BIYO & ORS v. KADI & ORS (2020)

BIYO & ORS v. KADI & ORS

(2020)LCN/14068(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(JOS JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Thursday, March 26, 2020

CA/J/471/2018

Before Our Lordships:

Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru Justice of the Court of Appeal

Mudashiru Nasiru Oniyangi Justice of the Court of Appeal

Boloukuromo Moses Ugo Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

1. GAMBO ADAMU BIYO 2. YAKUBU WAKILI BIYO 3. UMARU HAMZA BIYO 4. USMAN MUHAMMAD BIYO 5. UMARU DAN KARIYA BIYO APPELANT(S)

And

(1) DAN AZUMI MUHAMMAD KADI (2) GARBA DOGO ALI KADI (3) SHUAIBU BULAMA KADI (4) SHUAIBU ABDULKARIM KADI RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

WHETHER OR NOT IT IS THE DUTY OF THE TRIAL COURT TO EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED AND MAKE APPROPRIATE FINDINGS OF FACT IN THE CASE BEFORE IT

It is common ground that the duty of a trial Court is to adequately evaluate the evidence adduced in the case and make appropriate finding of fact in respect of all issues arising in the case and material to the determination of the case. See the case of T.A.O. WILLSON AND ORS V A.B. OSHIN AND ORS 2 SCNQR 1215 at 1240, A.R. MOGAJI AND ORS V MADAM RABIATU ODOFIN AND ORS (1978) 4 SC 91 at 94. I am not unmindful of the fact that a judge is at liberty to make inferences and deduce or infer from the evidence before him. SeeOSUAGWU V THE STATE (2013) 1-2 (Pt. 1) 37. A Judge will be able to perform this duty effectively and give meaning to contested fact when he is able to break those facts down with some rationality, give them probative value that they deserve, make useful and definable finality and draw proper and acceptable inference from relevant facts of the evidence tendered see BENEDICT O. NWOTI VS T.O.C MBONU (1991) 7 NWLR (Pt. 206) 737 at 746. PER ONIYANGI, J.C.A.

PROOF OF OWNERSHIP OR TITLE TO LAND IN AN ACTION FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND

For proof of ownership or title to land, the law recognizes five distinct ways in which title to or ownership of land in Nigeria could be proved as laid down by the apex Court in the case of IDUNDUN V OKUMAGBA (1976) 9-10 SC 227. They are:
(a) By traditional evidence
(b) By production of documents of title duly authenticated and executed
(c) By acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time numerous and positive enough as to warrant the inference of true ownership.
(d) By acts of long possession and enjoyment, and
(e) Proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances rendering it probable that the owner of such connected or adjacent land would in addition be the owner of the land in dispute. See the case of AIGBOBAHI V AIFUWA (2006) 2 SC (Pt. 1) 82.
I am not unmindful of the well settled principle of law that each of the five foregoing methods of proving title to land set out in the case of IDUNDUN AND ORS V OKUMAGBA & ORS (1976) 9-10 SC 227 inclusive of proof of ownership by traditional history or evidence will suffice independently of each other to prove title to land. See the following cases, NWOSU V UDEAJA (1990) 1 SC 181, SUNDAY PIARO V CHIEF TENALO AND ORS (1976) 12 SC 31 at 4, OKONKWO V OKOLO (1988) 2 NWLR (PT. 79) 632, KYARI V ALKALI (2001) 5 SC (Pt. 11) 192 and AYORINDE AND 3 ORS V SOGUNRO AND 6 ORS (2012) 4-5 SC 160. It is also settled that a party may rely on more than one mode of proving ownership or title to land as long as those other forms are pleaded. See BALOGUN V AKANJI (2006) 3-4 SC 160. PER ONIYANGI, J.C.A.

CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE WILL BE SAID TO OCCUR IN CIVIL MATTERS

In civil matters like the one at hand, miscarriage of justice may occur under any of the following circumstance.

(1) Where there is misapprehension by the trial Court as to the onus of proof or a wrong approach to evidence called (See SANUSI V AMEYOGUN (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt. 237) 527.
(2) Where judgment is given in chamber.
(3) Where there is wrongful admission or rejection of evidence that has affected the decision (see ADEKUNLE V. ADEGBOYE (1992) 2 NWR (Pt. 223) 305.
(4) Where the trial judge misconceived the issues or summarizes the evidence inadequately or incorrectly for one side or the other. See IFEAJUNA V IFEAJUNA (1997) 7 NWLR (Pt. 513) 416-417.
(5) Where the Court raise an issue suo-motu and parties are not heard on that issue and the issue goes to the root of the case. PER ONIYANGI, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT THE APPEAL COURT CAN DO ITS OWN EVALUATION WHERE THERE IS IMPROPER EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE BY THE TRIAL COURT

Where there is improper evaluation of evidence by the trial Court, as in this appeal at hand the Appellate Court is in good position as the trial Court to do its own evaluation. See ADEYERI II V. ATANDA (1995) 5 NWLR (Pt. 397) 512. PER ONIYANGI, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT AN UNCHALLANGED AND UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE SHOULD BE ACCEPTED BY THE COURT

It is trite that evidence which is unchallenged and uncontradicted if credible, ought to be accepted as there is nothing on the other side to balance, see ADEJUMO V AYANTEGBE (1989) 3 NWLR see (Pt. 110) 417; HILLARY FARMS LTD V M. V. MAHTRA (2007) 6 SC (Pt. 11) p. 85 at 114. It is also the law that if the evidence led on the fact pleaded is admissibly relevant, uncontradicted and not discredited by cross- examination, a Court can legally rely on it. See OBMIAMI BRICK AND STONE (NIGERIA) LIMITED V AFRICAN CONTINENTAL BANK LTD (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt. 229), 260; A.I. EGBUNIKE AND ANO V AFRICAN CONTINENTAL BANK LTD (1995) 2 NWLR (Pt.375) pg. 34 at 55, JOSEPH IFETA V SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT CO. OF NIG (2006) 8 NWLR (Pt. 983) p. 585, IYERE V BENDEL FEEDS AND FLOUR MILL LTD (2008) 7-12. SC 151 at 187. PER ONIYANGI, J.C.A.

MUDASHIRU NASIRU ONIYANGI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The Appellants in this appeal are Plaintiffs before the High Court of Justice, Potiskum Judicial Division, Yobe State wherein they sought for the following reliefs against the Respondents as Defendants (see paragraph 34 of the statement of claim on page 11 of the Record of Appeal).
PARAGRAPH 34
“WHEREOF the Plaintiffs claims as follows:
(1) A declaration that the Plaintiffs and Biyo Community are entitled to and have legal right and interest over the piece of land situate at Boza Area of Biyo Community which is bordered to the East with the farmland of Ali Garka, to the South with Kwarin Gaduru, at the North with the farmlands of the people of Zayi village and at the West with the farmlands of the People of Jukre village.
(2) An order for injunction restraining the Defendants either by themselves, their agents, servants, privies or any other person claiming through them from tempering with the rights and interest of the Plaintiffs over the said farmland at Boza Area of Biyo Community.

Issues were joined by parties and the matter went into full trial before the

trial Court. The Appellants called a total of eight witnesses to establish their claim while the Respondents called five witnesses. The Respondents’ bid to tender an agreement between the contending parties as exhibits met a stone wall. The documents were rejected by the Court (see pages 36-37 of the Record of Appeal).

Briefly put, the claim of the Plaintiffs before the trial Court is for declaratory and injunctive reliefs over a piece of farmland which they inherited from their parent who also inherited from their grand parents over 70 years ago. The said farm land, according to the Plaintiffs was given to the Defendants to farm and which the Defendant denied.

There are attempts to resolve the issue amicably by the traditional ruler of the Defendants but failed and hence, the Plaintiffs resulted into litigation.

After a full trial, the learned trial Judge in his considered judgment refused and dismissed the claims of the Plaintiffs (Appellants) (see page 66 of the Record) thus:
“It is for all the above reasons that I find no merit in the case of the Plaintiffs, and if anything, it would only give room to inter-communal conflicts

which our Courts must squarely address. The Plaintiffs’ case must therefore fail and is accordingly hereby dismissed. I award a cost of N50,000.00 against all the Plaintiffs jointly and severally in favour of the Defendant.”

Miffed by the outcome of the trial hence this appeal which is contested on four grounds.
The Record of Appeal was transmitted on the 26th day of November, 2018 out of time and hence by the order of this Court granted on the 6th day of March, 2019, same was deemed as properly compiled and transmitted. The Appellants’ brief of argument filed on 20th day of December, 2019 was equally deemed as properly filed and served on the 6th day of March, 2019. In the said brief, the Appellants presented the following issues for the determination of the appeal:
(1) Whether or not the lower Court was right when it held that having regard to the totality of the evidence of the Plaintiffs the suit is bound to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed the suit (Grounds 1, 2 and 3).
(2) Whether or not sympathy and sentiment has a place in the administration of justice (Ground 4)

In the Respondent’s brief of argument dated 22nd March, 2019 and filed on 25th day of March, 2019, the following issues were equally presented for the determination of the appeal.
(1) Whether the trial Court was right in finding that the Appellants did not prove title to the land in dispute by traditional history or evidence (Grounds 2 and 3).
(2) Whether the trial Court properly evaluated the evidence of both parties before arriving at its decision in dismissing the Plaintiffs’ case for failure to prove title to the farmland in dispute (Ground 1)

Upon a sober reading of the respective issues by parties, and the grounds of appeal, I am of the considered view that the issues formulated by the Respondents are more appropriate and ideal for the determination of this appeal. That notwithstanding, it is also my view that the two issues as they are will produced the same result in the end. Both issues poses the question, whether or not the learned trial Judge properly evaluated the evidence before the Court in coming to the conclusion reached. In the light to the foregoing therefore, I will adopt the second issue formulated by the Respondents for the determination of this appeal.

ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION
Whether the trial Court properly evaluated the evidence of both parties before arriving at its decision in dismissing the Plaintiffs’ case for failure to prove title to the farmland in dispute.

On behalf of the Appellants, it is submitted that from the pleadings, evidence adduced by the Appellants, they have proved their case and the lower Court was wrong when it dismissed the suit of the Appellants. He contended that ownership or title to land may be proved by any of these five methods viz:-
(a) By traditional evidence
(b) By production of documents of title, which are duly authenticated;
(c) By act of selling, leasing, renting out all or part of the land or farming on it or on a portion of it.
(d) By acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land and
(e) By proof of possession of connected or adjacent land and circumstances rendering it probable that the owner of such connected or adjacent land would in addition be the owner of the land in dispute.

For the foregoing, he relied on the case of IDUNDUN V OKUMAGBA (1976) 9-10 SC 227. Further to the foregoing, it is also

contended that the law is settled that the mode of acquisition of title to land may be by:
(a) First settlement on the land and deforestation of the virgin land;
(b) Conquest during tribal wars;
(c) Gift;
(d) Grant – customary
(e) Sale; or
(f) Inheritance

He relied on the case of AJIBOYE V ISHOLA (2006) 11 MJSC p. 191 at p. 209 paras. C-F. He submitted that it is the duty of the Plaintiff in an action for declaration of title to land to adduce sufficient and credible evidence to establish the mode of acquisition of his title and the law is that the said Plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defence, although the Plaintiff may take advantage of the Defendant’s evidence where it supports his case. He relied on the case of ONWUGBUFOR VS OKOYE (1996) 1 NWLR (Pt. 424) p. 252. He added that the Appellants have put before the trial Court direct and credible evidence in proof of their claim of title through inheritance. He referred to the evidence of PW1- PW5 contained on pages 20-27 of the Record of Appeal and the case of KOSILE V FOLARIN (1989) 4 SC (Pt. 1) 150 at 164 lines 37.

It is his case that the Appellants by their testimonies before the Court has proved the following:
(a) That the founders of the said farm land in dispute are their grand fathers namely:- Manu Janla, Ba Sasari, Ba Mai, Matulum, Baddo, Bazuwa, Ali Audu Yanga, Ibrahim, Musa and Ba’aba.
(b) How they founded the land in dispute by clearing the virgin land.
(c) Those who have taken over from them till the present claimants and that the Appellants inherited the said farmland from their late grandfather and father – Batiyya and Baddo.

Further, they argued that a party seeking a declaration of title to land and who relies on traditional history as proof of his root of title must plead same sufficiently and demonstrate in his pleadings the original founder of the land, how he founded the land, the particulars of the intervening owners through whom he claims. He added that the Appellants put before the trial Court direct and credible evidence in proof of their claim as a party seeking a declaration of title to land is not bound to plead and prove more than one root of title. He referred to the pleadings at pages 20-27 of the

Record, Evidence of PW1-PW4 at page 20-27 and the case of ERONINI V IHEUKO (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 101) 46 at 61, EKWUNIFE VS WAYNE (WEST AFRICA) LTD (1989) 12 SC 92 at 102 lines 29-30.

He argued further that, it is the duty of a trial Judge to evaluate the evidence before him to arrive at a just decision and not to be swayed by sentiments. He submitted that the decision of the learned trial Judge was influenced by sympathy and sentiments in favour of the Respondent. He referred to pages 50-66. He contended that the law is trite that sympathy and sentiments have no place in the administration of justice. He relied on the case of ONWUNALA V UCHE (2010) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1179) P. 582 at 608. He added that a Court is bound to examine the evidence before it without considering any extraneous matter. It is a hard matter of law, facts and circumstances which the Court considers without being emotional, sensitive or sentimental. A judge should avoid apparent sentimental adjudication but call a spade by its real name, not a shovel. He referred to pages 50 -66 of the record of appeal and the case of SULEMAN AND ANOR VS COP PLATEAU STATE (2008) LPELR 3126 (SC) Per NIKI TOBI JSC at page 20.

He submitted that there has been a mistrial, a substantial misdirection by the trial Court due to the apparent sentimental adjudication by the lower Court which has occasioned a serious miscarriage of justice. He urged the Court to so hold.

On the part of the Respondents, it is submitted that the learned trial Judge rightly dismissed the Appellants’ case for failure to prove title to the land in dispute. He argued that where the Plaintiffs are claiming declaration of title to land under traditional history or evidence, it must be conclusive evidence pleaded and prove of such facts as:-
(a) Who founded the land in dispute.
(b) How they founded the land and
(c) Particulars of the intervening owners through whom he claims.

He argued that the Appellants failed to plead and prove the particulars of the intervening owners through whom he or they claim as per the Plaintiffs pleadings. He referred to page 7 of the Record of Appeal and the case of OPOTO V ANAUN (2016) 16 pages 475-476 pages B-G, ELEGUSHI VS OSENI (2005) 14 NWLR (Pt. 945) page 348, NKADO V OBIANO (1997) 5 NWLR (Pt. 503 pg. 31. Referring to the evidence of

PW1, a 115 years old man, PW2, a 57 years old man on pages 20-23 and 24 of the record and the claim of the Defendants vide the evidence of DW1-4 of pages 28-33 of the Record of Appeal, he submitted that the burden of prove lies on the Plaintiffs not only to trace their title to the person(s) who or whom first settled on the land, but also show how many children the original settlers had on the land and how the land devolved on the family or community over the years until the Plaintiffs exclusive possession. He added that where the line of succession is not satisfactorily traced in an action for declaration of ownership of land or title and there is gap in the line of succession, such line of succession would be rejected. He relied on the evidence of PW1 and PW2 contained on pages 20-21 of the Record of Appeal and the cases of BALOGUN V YUSUFF (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1200) page 515 at page 536 paragraphs B-D, See also ALI VS SALIHU (2011) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1228) page 393, MOGAJI V CADBURY (Nig.) LTD (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 7) page 227 at pages 261-262 paras. G-H, DIKE V OKOLOEDO (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt. 623) page 359 at pages 379-380 paras. F-B.

He added that it is settled that evidence that would uphold a case of traditional history in the first place must be in accordance with the pleadings and secondly, there must be credible and reliable evidence. He referred to the finding of the Court on page 66 lines 3-8 of the Record and lines 10-18.

On the question whether or not the Court properly evaluated the evidence before it, he submitted that the learned trial Judge properly evaluated the evidence of both parties before dismissing the Plaintiffs’ case for failure to prove their title to the land in dispute. He referred to the testimonies of PW1-PW8 on pages 20-27 of the record of appeal and that of DW1-DW4 on pages 28-33 of the record. He reiterated that evaluation of evidence is basically the assessment of the facts by the trial Court so as to ascertain which of the parties to a case has the preponderance of evidence. He argued that the learned trial Judge has reviewed the evidence of parties and considered the submission of Counsel and gave a reasoned decision. He relied on page 66, lines 10-17 of the record. It is his case that the Defendants have shown by credible evidence of acts of ownership and possession. He relied

on the cases of OKWARANONABI VS MBADUGBA (2013) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1383) page 255 at 375-276, IKHINMWIN VS ELEMA (2015) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1461) page 283 at 310-311. He added that the appraisal of evidence and the ascription of probative value thereto is the primary function of the trial Court and that where the trial Court has unquestionably evaluated the evidence and justifiably appraised the facts it is not the business of the Appellate Court to interfere and substitute its own view for the view of the trial Court. He relied on the following cases. IKHINMWIN V ELEMA (supra) at pages 31-312 paras. 11-13, ADEBAYO V A.G. OGUN STATE (2008) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1085) page 201, SAGAY VS SAJERE (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt. 661) page 360.

Based on the foregoing, he concluded and urged the Court to resolve the issue against the Appellants, dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the lower Court.

As I said before, the thrust of the complaint of the Appellants is that the learned trial Judge did not properly evaluate the evidence placed before it before coming into the conclusion reached. When an Appellant complains that a judgment is against the weight of evidence, it means that when

the evidence adduced by him is balanced against that adduced by the Respondent, the judgment given in favour of the Respondent is against the weight which have been given by the totality of the evidence before the Court.

In this appeal, it is on record that the Appellants called eight witnesses while the Respondents called 4. The claim of the Appellants before the trial Court in the main is for the ownership of a piece of farm land. For proof of ownership or title to land, the law recognizes five distinct ways in which title to or ownership of land in Nigeria could be proved as laid down by the apex Court in the case of IDUNDUN V OKUMAGBA (1976) 9-10 SC 227. They are:
(a) By traditional evidence
(b) By production of documents of title duly authenticated and executed
(c) By acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time numerous and positive enough as to warrant the inference of true ownership.
(d) By acts of long possession and enjoyment, and
(e) Proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances rendering it probable that the owner of such connected or adjacent land would in addition be the owner of the land in dispute. See the case of AIGBOBAHI V AIFUWA (2006) 2 SC (Pt. 1) 82.
I am not unmindful of the well settled principle of law that each of the five foregoing methods of proving title to land set out

in the case of IDUNDUN AND ORS V OKUMAGBA & ORS (1976) 9-10 SC 227 inclusive of proof of ownership by traditional history or evidence will suffice independently of each other to prove title to land. See the following cases, NWOSU V UDEAJA (1990) 1 SC 181, SUNDAY PIARO V CHIEF TENALO AND ORS (1976) 12 SC 31 at 4, OKONKWO V OKOLO (1988) 2 NWLR (PT. 79) 632, KYARI V ALKALI (2001) 5 SC (Pt. 11) 192 and AYORINDE AND 3 ORS V SOGUNRO AND 6 ORS (2012) 4-5 SC 160. It is also settled that a party may rely on more than one mode of proving ownership or title to land as long as those other forms are pleaded. See BALOGUN V AKANJI (2006) 3-4 SC 160.

Having set out the foregoing and upon a careful reading of the record and in particular, the testimonies of respective witnesses called by parties, I have no hesitation in my mind in coming to the conclusion that the learned trial Judge conclusion on the evidence adduced by the Appellants is a product of misdirection which in the circumstance has led to miscarriage of justice. In civil matters like the one at hand, miscarriage of justice may occur under any of the following circumstance.

It is my fervent view that the evidence tendered by PW1-PW5 on record are preponderant enough to tilt the scale of justice in favour of the Appellants. The evidence of the witnesses are in the direction that their grand fathers namely, Manu Janla, Ba Sasari, Ba Mai, Mutulum, Baddo Bazuwa, Ali, Audu Yanga, Ibrahim, Musa and Ba’aba and that the Appellants inherited the farm lands from their grand fathers and fathers. These pieces of evidence are direct and credible and has not been

contradicted in any form by any cross examination. I do not agree with the reason which swayed the learned trial Judge in dismissing the case of the Appellants that if judgment is given to the Appellants it would give room for inter-communal conflict which the Court must address. (See page 66 of the Record of Appeal). The requirement set by the trial Court of absence of evidence of children can also not stand. The pleading and evidence by PW1-5 to the effect that their grandfather and father founded the land are material and direct evidence of the fact that they are descendants and children of those named grandfather and father. The foregoing has led me to the conclusion that, the foregoing misdirection are product of improper evaluation of evidence. Where there is improper evaluation of evidence by the trial Court, as in this appeal at hand the Appellate Court is in good position as the trial Court to do its own evaluation. See ADEYERI II V. ATANDA (1995) 5 NWLR (Pt. 397) 512.

The testimony of PW1 a 115 years old man, that their grandfather cleared the farmland and naming those grandfather has not been disputed. The evidence of the rest witnesses of the

Appellants before the trial Court is built on these uncontradicted evidence. It is trite that evidence which is unchallenged and uncontradicted if credible, ought to be accepted as there is nothing on the other side to balance, see ADEJUMO V AYANTEGBE (1989) 3 NWLR see (Pt. 110) 417; HILLARY FARMS LTD V M. V. MAHTRA (2007) 6 SC (Pt. 11) p. 85 at 114. It is also the law that if the evidence led on the fact pleaded is admissibly relevant, uncontradicted and not discredited by cross- examination, a Court can legally rely on it. See OBMIAMI BRICK AND STONE (NIGERIA) LIMITED V AFRICAN CONTINENTAL BANK LTD (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt. 229), 260; A.I. EGBUNIKE AND ANO V AFRICAN CONTINENTAL BANK LTD (1995) 2 NWLR (Pt.375) pg. 34 at 55, JOSEPH IFETA V SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT CO. OF NIG (2006) 8 NWLR (Pt. 983) p. 585, IYERE V BENDEL FEEDS AND FLOUR MILL LTD (2008) 7-12. SC 151 at 187.

In the light of all the foregoing, I am of the ardent view that the evidence by the Appellants before the trial Court is preponderant enough and credible to warrant judgment being entered in their favour. On that note, I answer the question in the negative and resolve the issue against the Respondents.

In consequence, I reverse and set aside the judgment of the High Court of Justice Yobe State, Potiskum Judicial Division in Suit No. YBS/HC/PT/21CV/2016 delivered on 26th day of March, 2018. Coram Hon. Justice I. W. Jauro.

In its place, judgment is entered declaring the Appellants and Boyi Community entitled to and have legal right and interest over that piece of land situate at Boza Area of Biyo Community which is bordered to the East with the farmland of Ali Garka, to the South with Kwarin Gaduru and the North with the farmland of the people of Zayi village and at the West with the farmlands of the people of Jukre village.

(2) Order of injunction is hereby granted restraining the Defendants either by themselves, their agents, servants, privies or any other person claiming through them from tempering with the rights or interest of the Plaintiffs over the said farmland at Boza Area of Boyi Community.
Parties to bear the costs.

HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading before now the lead judgment delivered by my learned brother, Mudashiru Nasiru Oniyangi, JCA. I agree and abide the conclusions reached therein.

BOLOUKUROMO MOSES UGO, J.C.A.: I had a preview of the lead judgment of my learned brother MUDASHIRU NASIRU ONIYANGI, J.C.A., and I agree with his reasoning and conclusion that the appeal is meritorious and should be allowed; accordingly, I also allow it and set aside the judgment of the lower Court, and in its stead, make an order granting the claims of the Appellants as Plaintiffs in the High Court of Yobe State.
I also abide by the order as to costs as contained in the lead judgment.

Appearances:

A. Sangei Esq., with him, S. G. Oyafemi Esq., N. S. Abimaje Esq., S. I. Mohammed (Mrs.) and I. H. Abdullahi Esq. For Appellant(s)

Mohammed Esq. For Respondent(s)