NAHUCHE & ORS v. GOVERNOR OF SOKOTO STATE (2020)

NAHUCHE & ORS v. GOVERNOR OF SOKOTO STATE

(2020)LCN/14254(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(SOKOTO JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Thursday, June 25, 2020

CA/S/74/2018

Before Our Lordships:

Ali Abubakar Babandi Gumel Justice of the Court of Appeal

Frederick Oziakpono Oho Justice of the Court of Appeal

Abubakar Mahmud Talba Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

ALH. MAMMAN NAHUCHE & 23 ORS APPELANT(S)

And

THE GOVERNOR OF SOKOTO STATE RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

WHETHER OR NOT FRAUD MUST BE SPECIFICALLY PLEADED WITH PARTICULARS AND PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

It is settled law that fraud must be specifically pleaded with particulars and proved beyond reasonable doubt. See W.A.B.L VS SAVANNAH VENTURES LTD. (2002) 5 SC (PT. 11) 98, HIGHGRADE MARITIME SERVICES LTD VS FIRST BANK OF NIG. LTD. (1991) 1 NWLR (PT. 167) 290, ONAMADE VS ACB LTD. (1997) 1 NWLR (PT. 480) 123, ABUBAKAR VS MANULU (2001) 8 NWLR (PT. 716) 728.
In ADEPATE VS BABATUNDE (2002) 4 NWLR (PT.244) 126, The Court held thus;
“it is trite law that if a party intends to rely on fraud, he must first and foremost plead same and follow that up with particulars of the alleged fraud. Where fraud is not pleaded and particulars supplied the Court will definitely be in error in relying on it in its judgment however brilliant the argument of counsel in his address. It also does not matter that there is evidence of fraud on record since it is the law that evidence of facts not pleaded goes to issue”. PER TALBA, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS AN INITIAL BURDEN ON THE PLAINTIFF TO PROVE DUE EXECUTION WHERE FORGERY OF A DOCUMENT IS ALLEGED

Where forgery of a document is alleged there is no initial burden on the plaintiff to prove due execution but the primary burden is on the defendant who alleged to prove the forgery alleged by him. See TEWOGBADE VS OBADINA (1994) 4 SCJN 161, NNACHI VS IBOM (2004) 16 NWLR (PT.900) 614, JANF VS DARIYE (2003)15 NWLR (PT.843) 436, NWOBODO VS ONOH (1984) 1 SCNLR 1, ISIAQ VS SONIYI (2009) ALL FWLR (PT. 498) 347, FREDRICH FASHANU &ORS VS A-G FEDERATION (2008) ALL FWLR (PT423) 1396. PER TALBA, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT A PLAINTIFF MUST SHOW THAT HE HAS LEGAL RIGHT OR INTEREST IN A SUBJECT MATTER OF LITIGATION TO HAVE LOCUS STANDI IN COURT

It is well settled that for a plaintiff to have locus standi he must show that he has a legal right or sufficient interest in the subject matter of litigation in order to secure audience in Court. The question whether or not the plaintiff has locus standi is usually deduced or determined from all the facts averred in the statement of claim.
The Courts approach is to look at the statement of claim to ascertain whether or not the plaintiffs sufficient interest has been disclosed and how the said interest has arisen from the subject matter of litigation. Where in the course of scrutinizing the statement of claim, the averments disclose the interest of the plaintiff and the interest is threatened with violation or actually violated by the defendant the plaintiff would be adjudged by the Court to have shown sufficient interest to entitle him to sue on the subject matter. See ADESANYA VS PRESIDENT OF NIGERIA & ANOR (1981)12 SCNJ 146, SEHINDEMI & 13 ORS VS GOV. OF LAGOS STATE & 7 ORS (2006) 10 NWLR (PT.987) 1, A-G AKWA IBOM STATE VS ESSIEN (2004) ALL FWLR (PT. 233) 1760, OLANIYAN VS ADENIYI (2007) 3 NWLR (PT.1020)26. PER TALBA, J.C.A.

TERMINATING A MATTER WITHOUT ITS MERIT

Tobi JCA (as he then was) OBM, in the case of SODIPO VS LEMMINKAINENOY (1992) 8 NWLR (PT.258) 258 @ 236, he stated thus;
“terminating a matter in limine without hearing its merit is one of the gravest reverses a plaintiff can incur in the litigation process. It is a most punitive measure in the judicial process. Therefore, Courts of law should resort to it when all other avenues for salvaging the action to the level of hearing it on merits have failed. A defendant may be very much in a hurry to terminate the proceedings at the slightest opportunity and with the slightest reason, since that will be to his advantage. But a Court of law must take time before it decides to shut the doors of litigation against a willing plaintiff mid-stream”. PER TALBA, J.C.A.

ABUBAKAR MAHMUD TALBA, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the Ruling of the Sokoto State High Court of Justice delivered by Bello Duwale J. on the 12th July, 2017 in suit No: SS/24/2017.

On the 10th day of March, 2017 the Appellants took out a writ of summons against the Respondents suing through their lawful attorney Aliyu Abubakar. The Appellants sought for declarations, an injunction, damages and cost of action against the respondents over a farm land situate at Faru faru Area covered by a certificate of occupancy No: SS.1126. Upon service of the writ of summons, the respondent’s entered a condition appearance and filed a notice of preliminary objection with a 13 paragraph affidavit in support. Attached to the affidavit in support are three Exhibits marked as Exhibits Ag 1-3. See pages 27-36 of the record. The parties filed and exchanged written addresses. In a considered Ruling the learned trial judge held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit as it relates to the 1st Appellant on the ground that the power of attorney given by the 1st appellant was forged and therefore Aliyu Abubakar lacks

the locus standi to bring the action.

Aggrieved by the decision, the Appellants filed a notice of appeal on the 6th September, 2017 with three grounds of appeal, thus;
GROUND ONE.
The judgment of the trial Court is against the weight of evidence.
GROUND TWO.
The trial Court errand in law which error occasioned a miscarriage of justice when it held that it does not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit as it relates to the 1st donor appellant.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
a. The 1st donor appellant is admittedly the holder of certificate of occupancy No: SS.1126.
b. The 1st donor appellant gave power of attorney over the said property to the DONEE appellant.
c. The done appellant by that token acquired interest in the property covered by C. of O No: SS.1126.
d. The property was admittedly acquired by the Respondents without due process of law.
e. The 1st donor appellant did not deny giving the power of attorney to the done Appellant.
f. The Donee appellant has sufficient interest in the property to sue upon its illegal acquisition.
g. The trial Court was wrong to hold that the Donee appellant had no

locus standi to bring the suit
h. The holding of the trial Court that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit has occasioned a miscarriage of Justice.
GROUND THREE
The trial Court erred in law which error occasioned a miscarriage of Justice when it held that the power of attorney given by ALH. MAMMAN NAHUCHE to the Donee appellant was forged.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
a. Allegation of forgery is an allegation of commission of a criminal offence.
b. Proof of allegation of crime in a civil suit is proof beyond reasonable doubt.
c. The onus to establish the allegation lay squarely on the Respondent.
d. The Respondent did not proof the allegation beyond reasonable doubt.
e. The trial court in arriving at conclusion that the power of attorney was forged, not consider the averment contained in the appellant’s counter affidavit.
f. In view of the conflict in the affidavits, the trial court ought to have called for oral evidence to resolve the conflict.
g. The failure of the trial Court to discharge it duty has occasioned a grave miscarriage of Justice.

While arguing this appeal, the Appellants Counsel

Chief S. Nwoke adopted his brief of argument filed on the 27TH November, 2018 and he urged the Court to allow the appeal.

Equally the Respondents Counsel H. S. Buhari senior state counsel adopted his brief of argument filed on the 18th day of March, 2019 but deemed properly filed and served on the 9th day of October, 2019.

From the three grounds of appeal the appellants distilled two issues for the determination of this appeal, thus;
1. Whether the court below was right in law when it held that the 1st appellants power of attorney was forged. (ground 1 & 3).
2. Whether the court below was right when it held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit as it relates to the 1st appellant (ground 2).

The respondent distilled a sole issue for determination thus;
Whether in the circumstance of this court below was right when it held that the suit is not competent in respect of the 1st appellant.

It is settled that issues for determination may be those framed by either one or both of the parties. They may also comprise of issues reframed by the Court after a consideration of those set out by the parties alongside the

grounds of appeal filed. The Court is at liberty and possesses the jurisdiction to modify or reject all or any of the issues formulated by the parties, if in its view, such issue will not lead to a proper determination of the appeal. It is in view of these settled principle that I shall reframe the issue formulated by both parties for a more judicious and proper determination of the appeal.

The issue for determination is thus;

Whether the lower Court was right in law when it held that the 1st appellant’s power of attorney was forged and that the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit as it relates to the 1st appellant.

The appellant counsel submitted that the complaint of the respondents in their preliminary objection was to effect that the power of attorney given to Aliyu Abubakar who is anchor plaintiff is fraudulent and illegal. The affidavit in support of the notice of preliminary objection alleged that the signatures on all the powers of attorney were forged and specifically that the signature of the 1st appellant on the power of attorney did not match the one contained in the letter of grant.

In their counter affidavit the

appellant responded by stating that what was being referred to as the signature of the 1st appellant was his name written in full by someone else. See paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit at 48 of the record. And that the respondent did not counter the averment in the counter affidavit. The appellant counsel submitted that the trial Court without any reference to the counter affidavit stated thus;
“in this case, a look at the signatures of the first plaintiff in Exhibits (A-g) see page Ag 2 and Ag3 clearly reveals that this power of attorney attached to the statement of claims granted to Aliyu Abubakar at page 6 of the statement of claim was forged. The first plaintiff signature attached thereto at pages 6 of the statement of claim has no resemblance with his signature in exhibit Ag1-Ag3. This proves that the power of attorney donated to ALIYU ABUBAKAR by the first plaintiff was fraudulently obtained as it was forged.”

The learned counsel submitted that the trial Court was wrong in law because it has no jurisdiction to reconcile conflicting affidavits suo moto or prefer one version of the deposition to the other without oral evidence,

unless on clear issues where the Court can take judicial notice. He cited the case of ASONYE VS REGISTERED TRUSTEE CACN (1995)2 NWLR (PT. 379) 623 @ 634. He submitted that the trial judge believed the content of the affidavit in support without reference to the counter affidavit and proceeded to resolve the issue without hearing the other party contrary to the rule of natural Justice, Audi alterem partem. And that the failure to consider the import of paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit is a denial of fair hearing and therefore the resultant ruling is a nullity. He cited the case of OZIGBO VS REG TRUST OF EZI-OGANIRU (2009) 3 WRN 116 @ 134 and ABUBAKAR VS JOSEPH (2008) 50 WRN 1 @ 56.

Learned counsel submitted further that the allegation of the respondent that the power of attorney was fraudulently obtained or forged is an allegation of crime, it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt irrespective of the fact that it arose in a civil case. He relied on the case of NIGERGUARDS LTD VS EDINENUSOROH (2010) 12 NWLR (PT.1208) 207 and AGBI VS OGBEH (2006) 11 NWLR (PT. 990) 65.

Learned counsel submitted that if the trial Court had looked at the

documents which he relied on critically, he would have realized that the impression which appear on the three exhibits are not exactly the same. In exhibit Ag1 at page 34 we have A. MAMMAN NAHUCHE, in exhibit Ag2 we have ALHAJI MAMMAN NAHUCHE and in exhibit Ag3 we have again ALHAJI MAMMAN NAHUCHE 28/2/79-PA which tallies with the explanation in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit that the impression are the first appellants name written in full by someone else.

Learned counsel submitted that from the contents of the opposing affidavit there is a clear conflict which can only be resolved by parole evidence and the trial Court in the circumstance ought to have ordered the parties to call oral evidence to resolve the conflict. He relied on the case of GBADAMOSI VS ALETE (1998) 12 NWLR (PT. 578) 402 and G.M.O NWORAH & SONS CO. LTD VS AKPUTA (2010) 3 SC (PT.1) 23 and AMIARA VS ALO (1995) 7 NWLR (PT. 409) 623.

Learned counsel also submitted that the counter affidavit of the appellants was unchallenged and should have been accepted by the Court below. He relied on the case of FAREAST MARCHANTILE CO. LTD VS AKA (2009) 2 WRN 53.

On the issue

as to whether the lower Court was right in its holding that the 1st appellant lacked the locus standi to bring the action when he was suing through his lawful attorney?

Learned counsel submitted that the law is trite that the proper plaintiff in an action commenced pursuant to a power of attorney is the donor of the power of attorney. He relied on the case of VULCAN GASES LTD VS G.F IND AG (2001) 9 NWLR (PT.719) 610. Where the apex Court held thus;
“ this is because the Donee of a power of attorney or an agent in the presentation of a suit or an action pursuant to his powers must sue in the name of the donor of his principal and not otherwise.”
And the cases of MELWANI VS FIVE STAR IND. LTD. (2002) 3 NWLR (PT. 753) 217, AND C.N. EKWUAGOR INC NIG LTD VS ASO INVEST LTD. (2011) LPELR 3899 (CA).

Learned counsel submitted further that the power of attorney is not an instrument for alienation of title to or interest in land. It is only an instrument of delegation. The title to or proprietary interest in a piece of land over which a power of attorney is given still resides with the donor unless and until the Donee alienates the

property to himself or to another person on the power of attorney. He cited the case of UDE VS NWARA (1993) 3 SCNJ 47 @ 66-67 where the apex Court held thus;
“…a power attorney merely warrants and authorizes the Donee to do certain Acts in the stead of the donor and so is not an instrument which confers, transfers, limits, charges and alienates any title to the Donee, rather it could be a vehicle whereby these acts could be done by the Donee for and in the name of the donor to third part…”
See CHIME VS CHIME (2001) 1 SCNJ 182.

Learned counsel submitted that in determining whether a plaintiff has locus standi to bring an action it is the statement of claim that the Court looks at. See MOHAMMED VS BABALOLA (2012) 5 NWLR (PT. 1293) 395. Therefore, the documents attached to the affidavit in support of the preliminary objection which the Court relied upon to hold that the 1st appellant lacked locus standi to institute the action had no value or role in the determination of locus standi.

The respondents brief of argument is presented in five parts. Part one deals with lack of locus standi, part two deals with lack of

reasonable cause of action, part three deals with abuse of Court process and part four deals with lack of jurisdiction then the last is the conclusion.

Relying on judicial authorities the respondents counsel defines cause of action as a factual situation which enables one person to obtain a remedy from another in the Court with respect to the injury. See N.E.P.A VS OLAGUNJU (2005) 1 NWLR (PT. 127) 369 and THOMOS VS OLUFOSOYE (1984) 598 and he submitted that the appellants originating process in the instant suit does not disclose any cause of action as he has not shown any right of his that has been violated.

On abuse of Court process, the respondent counsel equally relied on the definition of the term abuse of Court process in the following cases; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ANAMBRA STATE VS UBA (2005) ALL FWLR (PT. 277), ARUBO VS AIYELERI (1993) 3 NWLR (pt. 280) 126 AND SARAKI VS KOTOYE (1992) 9 NWLR (264) 156.

He submitted that a panoramic perusal of the entire gamut of this case will show that the appellant is not acting in good faith he brought this case in order to harass, irritate and annoy, the respondent especially the 1st respondent that did

not in any way or manner infringe any of his rights. This suit is therefore an abuse of Court process.

On locus standi the respondent counsel submitted that before an appellant could validly maintain an action against the respondent such appellant must show in his writ of summons and statement of claim that he has sufficient interest in the subject matter in dispute. He cited the case of AJAGUNGBADE III VS ADEYELU II (2001) 16 NWLR (PT. 738) 126 and PHARMATEK IND. PROJECT LTD. VS TRADE BANK OF NIGERIA. (1997) 7 NWLR (PT. 593) 35.

Learned counsel submitted that the appellant solely rely on the power of attorney donated to him by the 1st appellant which was made in anticipation of this suit and consequently lacks the requisite locus standi to institute this action. Learned counsel submitted further that a close look at Exhibits AG1, AG2, AG3 on pages 34-36 of the record of appeal as well as the 1st appellant’s signature on the instrument of power of attorney will reveal that Aliyu Abubakar the Donee, could have as well sign the instrument of power of attorney for the 1st appellant while he signed for himself as the Donee. If it is the signature of the 1st

appellant on exhibit AG1 then whose signature is on the instrument of power of attorney. The learned counsel submitted further that the Court below examined the exhibits in its record and came up with a finding that a look as the signature of the 1st appellant in exhibits AG2 and AG3 clearly reveal that the power of attorney attached to the statement of claim has no resemblance with the signature in exhibits AG1 – AG3 and held the opinion that the power of attorney donated to the 1st appellant Aliyu Abubakar was forged.

On the issue of jurisdiction, the respondent counsel simply set out the judicial authorities on the effect of a Court lacking in jurisdiction and concluded that whatever action it took is null and void. He cited a litany of judicial authorities.
MADUKOLU VS NKEMDILIM (1962) 1 ALL NLR 587
SKEN CONSULT VS UKEY (1981) SC 6
ATT-GEN OF LAGOS STATE VS DOSUNMU (1989) 3 NWLR (PT. 111) 552.
ODOFIN VS AGU (1992) 3 NWLR (PT. 329) 315
BRONIK MOTORS LTD VS WEMA BANK LTD (1983) 6 SC 158
OSADEBAY VS A. G BENDEL STATE (1991) 1 NWLR (PT. 169) 525
ISHOLA VS AJIBOYE (1994) 6 NWLR (PT. 352) 506
YALAJU AMAYE VS AREC LTD (1990) 4 NWLR (PT. 145) 422

And UAC LTD VS MACFOY (1961) WLR 1045.

Now the crux of this appeal is the ruling of the learned trial judge specifically at pages 82-87 of the records… For the purpose of emphasis and appreciation I shall produce the relevant portions of the ruling at pages 82 it reads;
“… I do agree with the Hon. Attorney general that if the power of attorney donated to Aliyu Abubakar by the plaintiffs are invalid, the power of attorney cannot confer on Aliyu Abubakar the locus to institute this suit on their behalf as he has no right independent of the power of attorney donated to him by the plaintiff…”
At pages 83 line 12-23 it reads;
“… in this case a look at the signatures of the 1st plaintiff in exhibit (A-G) AG2 and AG3 clearly reveals that his power of attorney attached to the statement of claims donated to Aliyu Abubakar at page 6 of the statement of claim was forged. The 1st plaintiff signature attached thereto at pages 6 of the statement of claim has no resemblance with his signature in exhibit Ag1-Ag3. This is a proof that the power of attorney donated to Aliyu

Abubakar by the 1st plaintiff was fraudulently obtained as it was forged…
This renders the power of attorney the 1st plaintiff donated as invalid and is incapable of conferring any locus standi to Aliyu Abubakar to institute this action on his behalf.”

At page 85 line 16-19 it reads
“I therefore hold that the plaintiffs have the legal capacity to institute this action either by themselves or through Aliyu Abubakar except the 1st plaintiff who can only institute the action by himself…”
At page 87 line 16-19 it reads
“On the whole I hold that the suit is not competent in respect of the 1st plaintiff but it is competent as it effects the 2nd – 24th plaintiff. Accordingly, the objection is over ruled in respect of the 2nd – 24th plaintiff”

The above decision of the learned trial judge affects only the 1st appellant Alh. Mamman Nahuche who donated a power of attorney to Aliyu Abubakar. It does not in any way affect the 2nd to 24th appellants. And the reason why it affects the 1st appellant is that the power of attorney attached to the statement of claim was fraudulently obtained as it

was forged. It therefore, renders the power of attorney invalid and is incapable of conferring any locus standi to Aliyu Abubakar to institute an action on behalf of the 1st appellant. The learned trial judge arrived at this decision after his findings that the 1st appellants signature attached at page 6 of the statement of claim has no resemblance with his signature in exhibits AG1 – AG3.

First of all, its crystal clear that nowhere in the ruling it is stated that the 1st appellant has not shown sufficient interest in the action and that his civil rights and obligations have not been or are not in danger of being infringed. Hence it is a farm land situate at faru faru area covered by certificate of occupancy NO SS.1126 that is in issue. The said certificate of occupancy bears the name of the 1st appellant Alhaji Mamman Nahuche. The main contention of the respondents which the learned trial judge agreed with is that the signature on exhibits AG1-AG3 are not the same with the one on the power of attorney donated to Aliyu Abubakar by the 1st appellant.

Black`s law dictionary seventh Edition defines signature as; a person`s name or mark written by

that person or at the person`s direction. Any name, mark or writing used with the intention of authenticating a document. With this definition of signature one will wonder how the learned trial judge arrived at his finding that the power of attorney was fraudulently obtained or it was forged. It is settled law that fraud must be specifically pleaded with particulars and proved beyond reasonable doubt. See W.A.B.L VS SAVANNAH VENTURES LTD. (2002) 5 SC (PT. 11) 98, HIGHGRADE MARITIME SERVICES LTD VS FIRST BANK OF NIG. LTD. (1991) 1 NWLR (PT. 167) 290, ONAMADE VS ACB LTD. (1997) 1 NWLR (PT. 480) 123, ABUBAKAR VS MANULU (2001) 8 NWLR (PT. 716) 728.
In ADEPATE VS BABATUNDE (2002) 4 NWLR (PT.244) 126, The Court held thus;
“it is trite law that if a party intends to rely on fraud, he must first and foremost plead same and follow that up with particulars of the alleged fraud. Where fraud is not pleaded and particulars supplied the Court will definitely be in error in relying on it in its judgment however brilliant the argument of counsel in his address. It also does not matter that there is evidence of fraud on record since it is the law that evidence

of facts not pleaded goes to issue”.
The allegation of fraud or forgery could not have been determined by the learned trial judge at a point of preliminary objection, hence it is an allegation of crime which must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. See Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 (as amended). Where forgery of a document is alleged there is no initial burden on the plaintiff to prove due execution but the primary burden is on the defendant who alleged to prove the forgery alleged by him. See TEWOGBADE VS OBADINA (1994) 4 SCJN 161, NNACHI VS IBOM (2004) 16 NWLR (PT.900) 614, JANF VS DARIYE (2003)15 NWLR (PT.843) 436, NWOBODO VS ONOH (1984) 1 SCNLR 1, ISIAQ VS SONIYI (2009) ALL FWLR (PT. 498) 347, FREDRICH FASHANU &ORS VS A-G FEDERATION (2008) ALL FWLR (PT423) 1396.

of claim to ascertain whether or not the plaintiffs sufficient interest has been disclosed and how the said interest has arisen from the subject matter of litigation. Where in the course of scrutinizing the statement of claim, the averments disclose the interest of the plaintiff and the interest is threatened with violation or actually violated by the defendant the plaintiff would be adjudged by the Court to have shown sufficient interest to entitle him to sue on the subject matter. See ADESANYA VS PRESIDENT OF NIGERIA & ANOR (1981)12 SCNJ 146, SEHINDEMI & 13 ORS VS GOV. OF LAGOS STATE & 7 ORS (2006) 10 NWLR (PT.987) 1, A-G AKWA IBOM STATE VS ESSIEN (2004) ALL FWLR (PT. 233) 1760, OLANIYAN VS ADENIYI (2007) 3 NWLR (PT.1020)26.

All these facts are not in contention before the trial Court. The learned trial judge was in error in his finding that the power of attorney attached to the statement of claim was fraudulently obtained as it was forged. And that it renders the power of attorney invalid and is incapable of conferring any locus standi to Aliyu Abubakar to institute an action on behalf of the 1st

appellant. Tobi JCA (as he then was) OBM, in the case of SODIPO VS LEMMINKAINENOY (1992) 8 NWLR (PT.258) 258 @ 236, he stated thus;
“terminating a matter in limine without hearing its merit is one of the gravest reverses a plaintiff can incur in the litigation process. It is a most punitive measure in the judicial process. Therefore, Courts of law should resort to it when all other avenues for salvaging the action to the level of hearing it on merits have failed. A defendant may be very much in a hurry to terminate the proceedings at the slightest opportunity and with the slightest reason, since that will be to his advantage. But a Court of law must take time before it decides to shut the doors of litigation against a willing plaintiff mid-stream”
The Courts must appreciate the fact that land litigations are still very sensitive issues in most parts of this country, therefore an uncanny decision in a land matter may lead to a breakdown of law and order. The preliminary objection by the respondents was a bubble which in its encounter with the principles of law, it was bound to burst, but nay it never did despite being devoid of any legal

support. The learned trial judge fell into error of what I may call for lack of better understanding of the need to prove an allegation of crime even in a civil matter beyond reasonable doubt. The respondent should not be allowed to escape by the back door and avoid the contest. Olatawura JSC (OBM) in the case of USIKARO V ITSKIRI LAND TRUSTEES (1991)2 NWLR (Pt. 172)180, he said:
“Let no man walk out of our Courts disappointed in the administration of justice. He will prefer to lose the case on its merit than to allow his opponent win by default.”

In summary the sole issue is resolved in favour of the appellant. The appeal is allowed. The ruling delivered on the 12th July, 2017 is hereby set aside. The case is remitted back to the Hon. Chief Judge of Sokoto State for trial before another Judge. No order for cost

ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL, J.C.A.: I have had the advantage of reading in draft, the lead judgment of my learned brother, Talba, JCA. The re-formulation of the issues for determination in the appeal was very well taken and meticulously resolved.

I agree with all the reasonings and conclusions. I abide by the

consequential

FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO, J.C.A.: I read the draft of the judgment of my learned brother, ABUBAKAR M. TALBA, JCA which he has just delivered and I am in agreement with the reasons and conclusions in allowing the appeal as meritorious. I have nothing else to add to a well written judgment and also subscribe to the consequential orders made thereto.

Appearances:

Chief Steve U. Nwoke Esq. For Appellant(s)

C/o Attorney Generals Chambers Ministry of Justice Sokoto For the Respondent For Respondent(s)