FASUYI v. UCHE (2022)

FASUYI v. UCHE

(2022)LCN/16557(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Thursday, July 14, 2022

CA/L/655/2016

Before Our Lordships:

Onyekachi Aja Otisi Justice of the Court of Appeal

Muhammad Ibrahim Sirajo Justice of the Court of Appeal

Adebukunola Adeoti Ibironke Banjoko Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

FELICIA FASUYI APPELANT(S)

And

CHIEF PIUS UCHE (For Himself And On Behalf Of The PIUS And UDOH Family) RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO:

A PERSON DOES NOT HAVE THE LOCUS STANDI TO BRING AN ACTION IN REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY AS AN ADMNISTRATOR UNLESS BEEN GRANTED LETTERS OF ADMNISTRATION

According to learned Counsel, the Respondent failed to properly describe his interest in the property and how the Property of his Late Married Sister devolved to himself, the Pius family and the Udoh family jointly. The property in dispute as examined in the Respondent’s Statement of Claim is an individual property allegedly vested in the Deceased on her demise and in absence of any assertion as to the Status of the Property, the Property forms part of the Estate. A person does not have the Locus Standi to bring an actionin Representative Capacity as an Administrator of a Deceased Person’s Estate unless has been granted Letters of Administration. The minutes of meeting of the Pius and Udoh families cannot vest any Legal Authority on anybody to commence and institute the Action for the Claim of Ownership and Possession of Property in dispute. He referred to Section 10 of the Administration of Estate Law of Lagos State, and the plethora of Case Law Authorities of MALLAM VS MAIRIGA (1991) 5 NWLR (PART 189) 114 AT 127, IDACHABA VS ILONA (2007) 6 NWLR (PART 1030) PAGE 227, OLORA VS ADEGBITE(2013) 1 NWLR (PART 1334) PAGE 40, ADMINISTRATORS/EXECUTORS, ESTATE OF ABACHA VS EKE-SPIFF(2009) 7 NWLR (PART 1139) PAGE 97, IRONBAR VS FMF (2009) 15 NWLR (PART 1165) PAGE 506 ADEBUKUNOLA ADEOTI IBIRONKE BANJOKO, J.C.A

THE LAND IN DISPUTE WILL BE VESTED ON THE ADMNISTRATOR GENERAL

Thus, the Respondent has the Locus Standi to institute the action as a brother of the original owner and to sue on behalf of the Families that mandated him. This right is independent of whether or not the Respondent had obtained Letters of Administration on the land. He submitted in regard to the Appellant’s contention that in the absence of a Will or Letters of Administration, the land in dispute would be vested on the Administrator General. He disagreed with the Appellant stating that it is only applicable to Unrepresented Estates adding that the Next of Kin has a Superior Ranking to the Administrator General. He relied on NIGERIAN LAND LAW BY PROFESSOR B O NWABUEZE (SUPRA) AT PAGE 442, ELENDU VS EKWOABA (1995) 3 NWLR (PART 386) PAGE 669, ATTORNEY GENERAL KADUNA STATE VS HASSAN (1985) 2 NWLR 483, SOGBESAN VS ADEBIYI (1941) 16 NLR 36, LAYINKA VS GEGELE 3 NWLR (PART 263) AT 518. ADEBUKUNOLA ADEOTI IBIRONKE BANJOKO, J.C.A

THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION CAN BE RAISED AT ANY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS

It is settled law that the question of jurisdiction, being an important and threshold matter, can be raised at any stage of the proceedings up to the final determination of an appeal by the Supreme Court. Reference is made to the Cases of OWIEVS IGHIWI (2005) LPELR-2846 (SC), AWUSE VS ODILI & ORS (2003) LPELR-666 (SC), OGIEGIE VS OBIYAN (1997) 10 NWLR (PART 524) 178, AKINFOLARIN VS AKINOLA (1974) 3 NWLR (PART 335) PAGE 659, OWONIBOYS TECHNICAL SERVICES LTD VS JOHN LTD (1991) 6 NWLR (PART 199) PAGE 550, UKWU VS BUNGU (1997) 8 NWLR (PART 518) 525.The issue of Jurisdiction is always fundamental and, when raised, it is only prudent that it be resolved first, otherwise, the Court that ignores that issue, might finally find itself on an adventurous journey. Jurisdiction is the power of the Court to adjudicate on the subject matter, and it is either given by the Constitution, or by a Specific Statute, on the Subject in issue. See NOKOPRISE INT CO LTD VS DOBEST TRADING CORPORATION (1997) 9 NWLR (PART 520) 336, AG FEDERATION VS AG ABIA STATE & 35 ORS (2001) 7 SC (PART 1) PAGE 100, NDAEYO VS OGUNNAYA (1977) 1 SC 11 and NATIONAL BANK VS SHOYOYE (1977) 5 SC 181. ADEBUKUNOLA ADEOTI IBIRONKE BANJOKO, J.C.A

THE DEFINITION OF A LOCUS STANDI BEING THE LEGAL RIGHT OF A PARTY TO AN ACTION

Locus Standi or standing to sue is the Legal Right of a party to an action to be heard in litigation before a Court of Law or Tribunal. A person is said to have Locus Standi if he has shown sufficient interest in the Action and that his Civil Rights and Obligations have been or are in danger of being infringed. See OLAGUNJU VS YAHAYA (1998) 3 NWLR (PART 542) PAGE 501, OKAFOR VS ASOH (1999) 3 NWLR (PART 593) PAGE 35, NNUBIA VS A.G. RIVERS STATE (1999) 3 NWLR (PART 594) PAGE 261, IBRAHIM VS INEC (1999) 8 NWLR (PART 614) PAGE 334, GUDA VS KITTA (1999) 12 NWLR (PART 629) PAGSE 21.
Locus Standi or Standi is the Legal Right of a party to an action to be heard in Litigation before a Court of Lawor Tribunal. The term entails the Legal Capacity of instituting or commencing an action in a competent Court of Law or Tribunal without any inhibition, obstruction or hindrance from any person or body whatsoever. See INAKOJU VS ADELEKE (2007) 4 NWLR (PART 1025) PAGE 432, AKANNI VS ODEJIDE (2004) 9 NWLR (PART 879) 575 CA, DANIEL VS INEC & ORS (2015) LPELR-24566 (SC), THOMAS & ORS VS OLUFOSOYE (1986) LPELR-3237 (SC) ADEBUKUNOLA ADEOTI IBIRONKE BANJOKO, J.C.A

THE COURT DOES NOT MAKE DECLARATIONS AS OF RIGHT EVEN ON MERE ADMISSIONS OR DEFAULT OF DEFENCE WITHOUT HEARING THE APPROPRIATE EVIDENCE AND BEING SATISFIED WITH SUCH EVIDENCE

Also, declaratory relief is a Discretionary Remedy, which will be refused where the Plaintiff fails to establish his entitlement to the satisfaction of the Court. Thus, it is settled law that the Court does not make declarations as of right, even on mere admissions or default of Defence without hearing the appropriate evidence and being satisfied with such evidence. Reliance was placed on the Case Authorities of OKEDARE VS ADEBARA (1994) 6 NWLR (PART 349) PAGE157 AT 186, EKE VS OKWARANYIA (2001) 12 NWLR (PART 726) PAGE 181 AT 206-207, DUMEZ NIG VS NWAKHOBA (2008) NWLR (PART 1119) PAGE 361 AT 386, OSUJI VS EKEOCHA (2009) 16 NWLR (PART 1166) PAGE 81 AT 112, PARAS E-G. ADEBUKUNOLA ADEOTI IBIRONKE BANJOKO, J.C.A

THE SETTLED LAW ON THE BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES

It is settled law that where that once Plaintiff in a Civil Matter shows a prima facie case, the balance of probabilities will be in his favour unless the defendant’s case tilts that balance. See NGENE VS IGBO & ANOR (2000) LPELR – 1987 (SC), BUHARI VS INEC & ORS (2008) LPELR-814 (SC), TORTI VS UKPABI & ORS(1984) LPELR-3259 (SC), EZEMBA VS IBENEME & ANOR (2004) LPELR-1205 (SC), EMEKA VS CHUBA-IKPEAZU & ORS (2017)LPELR-41920 (SC). ADEBUKUNOLA ADEOTI IBIRONKE BANJOKO, J.C.A

ADEBUKUNOLA ADEOTI IBIRONKE BANJOKO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Lagos State sitting in Lagos, delivered by Justice B.A Oke-Lawal on the 26th January 2016 in Suit No ID/1418/08 as seen on Pages 456 – 471 of the Record of Appeal.

The facts that gave rise to the Suit at the trial Court were that the Respondent who was the Claimant at the trial claimed that his Late Sister, Madam Nwa Monday Udoh, purchased a Plot of Land in the presence of Witnesses, which is situate, lying and being at Igbo Ologbo, Ayobo Area of Lagos State at a Purchase Price of N3, 000 (Three Thousand Naira) from the OLALORE, ATUKE, APASA FAMILY, after fulfilling the Native Law and Custom of Ayobo Land.

The Respondent’s Late Sister immediately commenced building on the said land after being led into possession. The deceased had constructed the building up to the window level until she died in 2001, consequently bringing the completion of the said building to a halt. Since the death of his sister, the Respondent had stopped visiting the said Plot of Land. On the 28th of November, 2007, the Respondent was alerted by a Neighbour living opposite the uncompleted building on the said Plot of Land, as to the presence of a stranger on the Land, and together with one of his relations, Chief Collins Anyanwu, he went to the said Plot of Land. There, he discovered that someone had commenced building upon the structure and noticed that some blocks had been added into the existing structure.

He then lodged a complaint with the Kabiyesi of Ayobo Land, who then advised them to return at a later date after he would mount surveillance, in order to find out the person trespassing on the said Plot of Land. Before the said appointed date, the Respondent discovered that the Appellant, then Defendant, had roofed the said building.

The Appellant and the Respondent met at the Palace on the date given to them by the Kabiyesi, who thereafter pronounced rightful possession in favour of the Respondent on the 20th March, 2008. It is also the contention of the Respondent that the Appellant destroyed the Gates and the Septic Tank on the said Plot of Land, before she commenced building and it was by the virtue of her destruction that she was arrested and charged for Malicious Damage at the Magistrate Court. He also stated that the Deceased Sister had already begun processing a Certificate of Occupancy for the said plot of Land.

The Respondent then commenced an action via a Writ of Summons and a Statement of Claim dated 22nd September, 2008 as seen on Pages 1 – 6 of the Record of Appeal. He also filed an Amended Statement of Claim dated and filed on the 13th March, 2010 as seen on Page 260 of the Record of Appeal claiming for the following reliefs:
1. A DECLARATION that the Claimant for himself, and on behalf of PIUS and UDOH FAMILIES, are the persons entitled to the ownership of the Plot of land situate and lying and being formerly of Igbo Ologbo Land, Ayobo Town via Agege, Lagos State but now, Thomas Oluwaseyi Street, Ayobo, Lagos State.
2. A DECLARATION that the Defendant is a stranger and/or Trespasser on the said Plot of land situate formerly of Igbo Ologbo Land, Ayobo Town, Via Agege, Lagos State but now Thomas Oluwaseyi Street, Ayobo, Lagos State.
3. AN ORDER awarding the Sum of N2, 000,000 (Two Million Naira) as General Damages for Trespass by the Defendant.
4. AN ORDER awarding the sum ofN5, 000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) as Special Damages.
5. AN ORDER of Perpetual Injunction restraining the Defendant, her servants, and all persons claiming through or under her from interfering with the Claimant’s title rights and interest in and over the said Plot of Land, the Subject Property of this Suit.
6. Cost of this Suit.
7. The Claimant claims as per the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim.

The Appellant in response to the Amended Statement of Claim, filed a Statement Defense dated 11th February, 2009 as seen on Pages 77 – 79 of the Record of Appeal.

At the close of trial, the parties on both sides of the divide adopted their Final Written Address and on the 26th January, 2016, the trial Judge entered judgment in favour of the Respondent, granting all the reliefs sought.

Displeased with the decision of the trial Court, the Appellant lodged a Notice of Appeal dated the 11th April, 2016, seeking for the following reliefs:
(i) AN ORDER setting aside the judgment of the High Court of Lagos State delivered on the 26th Day of January, 2016; and
(ii) AN ORDER dismissing the entire Claimant/Respondent in this case.

The Appellant’s Brief of Argument dated 11th August was filed 12th August, 2016 while the Respondent’s Brief of Argument dated was filed same 17th October, 2016. The Respondent urged this Court to dismiss this appeal. The Appellant Reply Brief dated was filed same 18th September, 2017. He urged the Court to allow the appeal.

In the Appellant’s brief, the following two issues were raised for determination:
1. Whether the trial Court was right in assuming Jurisdiction over the Suit of the Claimant (Grounds 1, 2 and 4)
2. Whether from the totality of the evidence before the trial Court, the trial Court was right in granting the reliefs and claims of the Claimant over the Land in dispute (Grounds 3)

The learned Counsel representing the Respondent raised three Issues for Determination to wit:
1. Did the Claimant in this matter lack the Locus Standi to institute the action in the lower Court?
2. Did the lower Court lack Jurisdiction on the matter on account of Locus Standi?
3. Was the judgment of the Court against the Weight of Evidence?

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
Having perused the Issues for Determination raised by both sides of the divide, it has been observed that the issues are identical and as such, this appeal will be resolved on the issues raised by the Appellant. The Issues for Determination are as follows:
1. Whether the trial Court was right in assuming Jurisdiction over the Suit of the Claimant.
2. Whether from the totality of the evidence before the trial Court, the trial Court was right in granting the reliefs and claims of the Claimant over the land in dispute.

SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL ON ISSUE 1
On this issue, learned Counsel submitted that the Respondent did not have the Locus Standi to commence the Suit and as such the trial Court lacked the Jurisdiction to adjudicate on the Suit. Jurisdiction is a threshold issue that is very fundamental and the nerve center of the entire Litigation before a Court of Law. Reliance is placed on ADESANYA VS PRESIDENT, FRN (NSCC) VOLUME 12 (1979 – 1981) 145, TAIWO VS ADEGBORO (2011) 11 NWLR (PART 1259) 562, AG FEDERATION VS ABIA STATE & ORS (2001) 11 NWLR (PART 725) PAGE 689 AT 762, ONYEMA VS OPUTA (1987) 3 NWLR (PART 60) PAGE 259 AT 293,MADUKOLU VS NKEMDILIM (1962) 2 SCNLR 374, AMADI VS FRN (2008) 18 NWLR (PART 1119) 259, FRANK & ORS VS COLONEL ABDU (2002) LPELR – 12178 (CA) PAGE 17 – 18.

Learned Counsel submitted that the issue of Locus Standi of the Respondent was timely raised at the lower Court in the Appellant’s Statement of Defence and Final Written Address but was not decided by the trial Court in her judgment. He referred to Pages 81 and 424 of the records. He distinguished the case authorities of UGU VS TABI (1997) 7 NWLR (PART 513) 368, SUFIANO VS ANIMASAUN (2000) 14 NWLR (PART 688) PAGE 650 AT 664 and SUFIANU VS ANIMASHAUN (supra) cited by the Respondent from the instant Suit.

Learned Counsel submitted further that only the Statement of Claim of the Plaintiff is considered in determining whether a party has Locus Standi to institute an action. He therefore made reference to the Respondent’s Amended Statement of Claim and submitted that the Respondent did not have locus standi because he did not institute the Suit as a beneficiary of the Estate of the Deceased. He also challenged the capacity of the Respondent to sue on behalf of both Pius and Udohfamilies and the eligibility of the families to claim Joint Ownership of the Property because the Respondent’s pleadings reveal that the property in dispute was still vested in the Deceased on her demise, not in the Pius and Udoh Families. Therefore, both families have no nexus or relationship with the Land in dispute. Reference was made to Case Authorities of AROWOLO VS OLOWOOKERE (2011) 8 NWLR (PART 1278) 280, AG FEDERATION VS SODE (1990) 1 NWLR (PART 128) PAGE 500, OROGAN VS SOREMEKUN (1986) 5 NWLR (PART44) PAGE 688, OLUWASAGO VS ADEBANJO (1988) NWLR (PART 88) PAGE 275, THOMAS VS OLUFOSOYE (1986) 1 NWLR (PART 18) 669.

Learned Counsel submitted further that the issue of the Custom and Native Law of the Deceased was nowhere raised in the Statement of Claim of the Respondent and the fact that the two respective families met and appointed the Respondent as their representative, does not show that the Pius and Udoh families both have a COMMON and JOINT right to the Property. In the absence of how the property became vested on both the Pius and Udoh families as a whole, the Respondent failed to disclose sufficient and special interest to entitle him, the Pius family and Udoh family, as a whole, to the Complaint brought before the trial Court.

Still arguing further, learned Counsel submitted that Family Land is vested in a Family as a Corporate Entity and the Respondent did not show in his pleading and has not shown how the land is the Family land in any of the ways identified in law which are by through customary law, purchase, first settlement or via will. Reliance was placed on Case Authorities of MILLER BROS LTD VS AYENI (1938) 5 NLR PAGE 42, OLOWOSAGO VS ADEBANJO (1988) 4 NWLR (PART 88) 275 AT 287, OGUNMEFUN VS OGUNMEFUN(1931) 10 NLR PAGE 82, NELSON VS NELSON (SUPRA).

According to learned Counsel, the Respondent failed to properly describe his interest in the property and how the Property of his Late Married Sister devolved to himself, the Pius family and the Udoh family jointly. The property in dispute as examined in the Respondent’s Statement of Claim is an individual property allegedly vested in the Deceased on her demise and in absence of any assertion as to the Status of the Property, the Property forms part of the Estate. A person does not have the Locus Standi to bring an action in Representative Capacity as an Administrator of a Deceased Person’s Estate unless has been granted Letters of Administration. The minutes of meeting of the Pius and Udoh families cannot vest any Legal Authority on anybody to commence and institute the Action for the Claim of Ownership and Possession of Property in dispute. He referred to Section 10 of the Administration of Estate Law of Lagos State, and the plethora of Case Law Authorities of MALLAM VS MAIRIGA (1991) 5 NWLR (PART 189) 114 AT 127, IDACHABA VS ILONA (2007) 6 NWLR (PART 1030) PAGE 227, OLORA VS ADEGBITE(2013) 1 NWLR (PART 1334) PAGE 40, ADMINISTRATORS/EXECUTORS, ESTATE OF ABACHA VS EKE-SPIFF(2009) 7 NWLR (PART 1139) PAGE 97, IRONBAR VS FMF (2009) 15 NWLR (PART 1165) PAGE 506.

He submitted finally that where it has been shown that the Court has no Jurisdiction or the Party seeking Relief has no Locus Standi, any observations the Court makes in respect of the matter do not enjoy the Status of an Obiter Dictum. Reference was made to the Case Authority of AKINBINU VS OSENI (1992) 215 AT PAGES 119 – 120 PARAS H – B.

Conversely, learned Counsel representing the Respondent submitted that the Respondent’s Right of Action flows from Two Sources – his blood ties to the Deceased and the Mandate given to him by the family. Locus Standi as a Legal Capacity based upon a sufficient interest in a Subject Matter to institute proceedings in a Court of Law to pursue a certain Cause of Action. Based on the two sources mentioned, the Respondent has the Locus Standi. He made references to the Black’s Law Dictionary, the Case Authorities of YESUFU VS GOVERNOR OF EDO STATE (2001) 6 SC PAGE 66; DANIEL VS INEC (2015) 3 to 4 MJSC, PAGE 5; UMAR VS WGG NIG LTD (2007) 7 NWLR (PART 1032) AT 117; ATTORNEY GENERAL ENUGU STATE VS OMABA (1998) 1 NWLR (PART 532) AT 82; NWUGEGE VS ADIGWE (1934) 11 NLR PAGE 134; THOMAS VS OLUFOSOYE (1986) 1 NSCC 323.

Learned Counsel submitted further that every member of the Family has the Locus Standi to institute an action against a wrong done to the property of the family. Thus, the Respondent has the Locus Standi to institute the action as a brother of the original owner and to sue on behalf of the Families that mandated him. This right is independent of whether or not the Respondent had obtained Letters of Administration on the land. He submitted in regard to the Appellant’s contention that in the absence of a Will or Letters of Administration, the land in dispute would be vested on the Administrator General. He disagreed with the Appellant stating that it is only applicable to Unrepresented Estates adding that the Next of Kin has a Superior Ranking to the Administrator General. He relied on NIGERIAN LAND LAW BY PROFESSOR B O NWABUEZE (SUPRA) AT PAGE 442, ELENDU VS EKWOABA (1995) 3 NWLR (PART 386) PAGE 669, ATTORNEY GENERAL KADUNA STATE VS HASSAN (1985) 2 NWLR 483, SOGBESAN VS ADEBIYI (1941) 16 NLR 36, LAYINKA VS GEGELE 3 NWLR (PART 263) AT 518.

Learned Counsel submitted that once the Issue of Jurisdiction of the Court is challenged, this must be settled before the substantive trial of the case and the Respondent had established his Locus Standi, which was considered by the trial Court, before the onset of the trial on Merits and he subsequently participated in the proceedings when the Court proceeded to trial. Therefore, they could not at a later stage, challenge issues of facts based on the proceedings. He relied on the case authority of YUSUF VS KODE (2001) 2 NWLR (PART 703) and NIGERIA AIRWAYS VS LAPITE (1990) 7 NWLR (PART 163) at 392 Reliance was placed on the Case Authority of OPOBIYI VS MUNIRU (2011) 12 MAJSC (PART 11); KATSINA LOCAL AUTHORITY V MAKUDAWA (1971) 7 NSCC 119.

According to Counsel, the issue between the parties was Title to Land and not succession to the estate of the deceased. Succession is being dragged into this appeal by the Appellant to becloud the issues at stake. The Issue of Succession, being raised now, is alien to this case. Where the issue of Jurisdiction of the Court is being raised at appeal, the question to be raised must involve Substantial Points of Law. It is obvious from the foregoing, that the Appellant is bent on frustrating the Respondent through the use of technicalities to deprive the Respondent of the fruits of his Labour in Court. He added that technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way of substantial Justice. Reliance was placed on CARIBBEAN TRADING COMPANY VS NNPC (1992) 7 NWLR (PART 252), TOM VS AMEH 1 NWLR (PART 217) PAGE 320, UBA VS DIKE NWORA (1978) 11 SC 1.

By way of Reply, learned Counsel representing the Appellant submitted that the Case Authorities of AG KADUNA VS HASSAN (SUPRA) and CARRIBBEAN TRADING COMPANY VS NNPC (1992) 7 NWLR (PART 252) 161 cited by the Respondent did not apply to this instant Case. A decision must be read in the light of the facts on which the Case was decided. The need to do Substantial Justice is no excuse for the Court to exceed its jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on the Case Authorities of EMEKA VS OKADIGBO & ORS (2012) 18 NWLR (PART 1331) 55 AT PAGE 96 – 97, OGIDI VS OKOLI (2014) LPELR – 22925 (CA).

He was of the view that the right and vested interest of a family member to file an action in respect of a family property only arises when it is established that the property belongs to the family. Reference was made to the Case Law Authority of LAYINKA VS GEGELE 3 NWLR (PART 263) AT 518, G CAPPA VS SHOKUNBI. Also, the issue of Locus Standi are derived from the Provisions of Section 6(6)(b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999 CFRN) which provides that Matters between Persons, or between Government in Nigeria for the determination as to the civil Rights and Obligations of that person and therefore if a Plaintiff has no Locus Standi his Claim must fail. Reliance was placed on the Case Authorities of GAMIOBA V ESEZI 11 (1961) 2 SCNLR 237 PG 28, PARAS B-D, NIGERIAN BOTTLING CO PLC V EZEIFO (2002) ALL FWLR (PART 97) 772.

RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE
It is settled law that the question of jurisdiction, being an important and threshold matter, can be raised at any stage of the proceedings up to the final determination of an appeal by the Supreme Court. Reference is made to the Cases of OWIEVS IGHIWI (2005) LPELR-2846 (SC), AWUSE VS ODILI & ORS (2003) LPELR-666 (SC), OGIEGIE VS OBIYAN (1997) 10 NWLR (PART 524) 178, AKINFOLARIN VS AKINOLA (1974) 3 NWLR (PART 335) PAGE 659, OWONIBOYS TECHNICAL SERVICES LTD VS JOHN LTD (1991) 6 NWLR (PART 199) PAGE 550, UKWU VS BUNGU (1997) 8 NWLR (PART 518) 525.The issue of Jurisdiction is always fundamental and, when raised, it is only prudent that it be resolved first, otherwise, the Court that ignores that issue, might finally find itself on an adventurous journey. Jurisdiction is the power of the Court to adjudicate on the subject matter, and it is either given by the Constitution, or by a Specific Statute, on the Subject in issue. See NOKOPRISE INT CO LTD VS DOBEST TRADING CORPORATION (1997) 9 NWLR (PART 520) 336, AG FEDERATION VS AG ABIA STATE & 35 ORS (2001) 7 SC (PART 1) PAGE 100, NDAEYO VS OGUNNAYA (1977) 1 SC 11 and NATIONAL BANK VS SHOYOYE (1977) 5 SC 181.

A Court is vested with Jurisdiction when to hear a matter:
(a) The Court has cognizance of the Class of Cases involved
(b) Proper Parties are present in Court
(c) When it is properly constituted as regards the numbers and qualifications of the members of the Bench and no member has been disqualified for one reason or the other.
(d) The subject matter of the Issue is within the Jurisdiction of the Court and there is no feature in the case that prevents the Court from exercising Jurisdiction.
(e) The case before the Court was initiated by due process of the law and upon the fulfillment of the condition precedent for the exercise of Jurisdiction. See AMADI VS FRN (2008) 18 NWLR (PART 1119) PAGE 259, MADUKOLU VS NKEMDILIM (1962) 2 SCNLR 341, ONI VS CADBURY (NIG) PLC (2016) LPELR-26061 (SC), AUDU VS APC & ORS (2019) LPELR-48134 (SC) and SKYPOWER EXPRESS AIRWAYS LIMITED VS UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC & ANOR (2022) SC, ELC 3605 AT PAGE 1, EUGENE OGBUJI & ANOR VS ORI AMADI (2022) SC ELC 3604.

The Appellant had challenged the Locus Standi of the Respondent to bring this Suit before the trial Court. It is his contention that the Respondent did not have the Locus Standi to institute the action. Therefore, the question before this Court is to consider whether the Respondent have the Locus Standi to sue or not.

Locus Standi or standing to sue is the Legal Right of a party to an action to be heard in litigation before a Court of Law or Tribunal. A person is said to have Locus Standi if he has shown sufficient interest in the Action and that his Civil Rights and Obligations have been or are in danger of being infringed. See OLAGUNJU VS YAHAYA (1998) 3 NWLR (PART 542) PAGE 501, OKAFOR VS ASOH (1999) 3 NWLR (PART 593) PAGE 35, NNUBIA VS A.G. RIVERS STATE (1999) 3 NWLR (PART 594) PAGE 261, IBRAHIM VS INEC (1999) 8 NWLR (PART 614) PAGE 334, GUDA VS KITTA (1999) 12 NWLR (PART 629) PAGE 21.
Locus Standi or Standi is the Legal Right of a party to an action to be heard in Litigation before a Court of Lawor Tribunal. The term entails the Legal Capacity of instituting or commencing an action in a competent Court of Law or Tribunal without any inhibition, obstruction or hindrance from any person or body whatsoever. See INAKOJU VS ADELEKE (2007) 4 NWLR (PART 1025) PAGE 432, AKANNI VS ODEJIDE (2004) 9 NWLR (PART 879) 575 CA, DANIEL VS INEC & ORS (2015) LPELR-24566 (SC), THOMAS & ORS VS OLUFOSOYE (1986) LPELR-3237 (SC)

Now, for a party to show that he has a Locus Standi to institute an action, the following conditions must be met:
1. The action must be Justiciable.
2. There must be a Dispute between the parties.
3. The Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim must disclose sufficient Legal Interest and show how the legal interest arose.
It should be noted that the three conditions are conjunctive as failure to disclose or show a Legal Interest means that the Plaintiff does not have the Locus Standi to bring the Suit. Where a Plaintiff does not have the Locus Standi to bring a Suit, the Suit becomes incompetent and as such the Court will be bereft of Jurisdiction to entertain the Suit. See EJIKEME VS AMAECHI (1998) 3 NWLR (PART 542) PAGE456, OGUNMOKUB VS MILITARY ADMIN, OSUN STATE (1999) 3 NWLR (PART 594) PAGE 261, AYOLA VS BARUWA (1999) 11 NWLR (PART 628) PAGE 595.

In this instant case, there is a justiciable action and there is also a dispute between the Appellant and the Respondent in respect of Title to Land but the troubling question is whether the Respondent has disclosed sufficient a Legal Interest. To answer this question, it is pertinent to examine the Respondent’s Amended Statement of Claim at the trial Court. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 of the Amended Statement of Claim are reproduced as follows:
1. The Claimant is the Brother to the Late Madam Nwa Monday Udoh and resides at No. 12, Mabinu Ori, Ilasamaja, Lagos.
2. The Claimants, via the Minutes of a General Meeting held on the 10th of August, 2008 wherein he was appointed as the Representative for both Pius and Udoh Families, Sue in a Representative Capacity in respect of instituting an Action in Court in relation to Claiming the Plot of Land situate, lying and being formerly at Igbo Ologbo, Ayobo, area of Lagos State but now renamed Thomas Oluwaseyi Street, Ayobo, Lagos State. The Claimant will be relying on the Minutes of the said General Meeting at the trial of this suit.
4. The Claimant avers that on the 22nd Day of July, 1973, his Late Sister, Madam Nwa Monday Udoh purchased a Plot of Land situate, lying and being formerly at Igbo Ologbo, Ayobo area of Lagos State from the OLALORE, ATUKE, APASA FAMILY before Witnesses and after fulfilling the Native Law and Customs of Ayobo Land. The Purchase Receipt of Sale is hereby Pleaded and shall be relied on at the trial of this Suit.
7. The Claimant avers that the Deceased had advanced to the window level when unfortunately, she died in 2001, bringing the completion of the said building to a halt and since the year in which his sister died, the Claimant had stopped visiting the said Plot of Land.

Now, from the Statement of Claim, it can be seen that the Respondent claimed to have Legal Interest in the suit at the trial Court on the basis that he is the Elder brother of late Madam Nwa Monday Udoh, the Original Owner of Land, he was suing on behalf of himself and on behalf and the families of Pius and Udoh (Families of the Deceased) as mandated by both Families at a meeting on the 10th August, 2008 to reclaim the land.

In ADALMA TANKERS BUNKERING SERVICES LTD & ANOR VS CBN & ORS (2022) LPELR-57036 (SC), the Supreme Court Per Mary Odili JSC defined Privy as follows:
“The word ‘Privy’ has also been defined to include all those who are Privy to the parties on record in blood, title or interest and estoppel Per Rem-Judicatam operates against all of them. See MUSA IYAJI VS SULE EYI GEBE (1987) LPELR- 1571 SC 1 AT 22-23 G-A per OPUTA, JSC where this Court held thus: “Who is a Privy? Are the parties to this appeal privies of the parties in Exhibit D1? In CARLZEIN-STIFTUNG VS RAYNER 4 KUELER LTD (NO 2) (1996) 2 ALL ER 536 HL AT PAGE 550, Lord Reid held that privies include all those who are privies to the parties, in Blood or title or Interest and Estoppel Per Rem Judicatam operates for or against, not only Parties but also those Privies above mentioned.”
Similarly, this Court in ODUMOSU & ANOR VS OLUWOLE & ANOR (2002) LPELR-12307 (CA) Per ADEKEYE JCA (as she then was) defined Privy as follows:
“A Privy is a person whose title is derived from and who claims through a party. Privies are – (a) Privies in Law (b) Privies in blood such as Blood Relations, Ancestors, Heirs (c) Privies in Estate such as Vendors and Purchasers of Land.” See also COKER & ANOR VS SANYAOLU (1976) LPELR-877 (SC), IYAJI VS EYIGEBE(1987) LPELR-1571 (SC), AGBOGUNLERI VS DEPO & ORS (2008) LPELR-243 (SC), OYEROGBA & ANOR VS OLAOPA (1998) LPELR-2878 (SC).
It can be seen from the foregoing that in this instant appeal, the Respondent is a Privy in Blood to the Late Madam Nwa Monday Udoh and therefore claimed to derive his interest in the Property in Dispute being a privy to the Deceased. In other words, the Respondent has claimed to be a Privy to the Owner of the land in dispute who is of course a qualified party to the suit.
In law, parties encompass privies which are classified into three: (1) Privies in Blood (as ancestor and heir) (2) Privies in Law (as Testator and Executor; Intestate and Administrator) and (3) Privies in Estate (as Vendor and Purchaser, Lessor and Lessee). Reliance is placed on COKER VS SANYAOLU (1976) 9-10 SC 203, OYEROGBA VS OLAOPA (1998) 12 SCNJ 115, OMOLOYE VS A.G., OYO STATE (1987) 4 NWLR (PART 64) 267, BALOGUN VS ADEJOBI (1995) 1 SCNJ 242, ADONE VS IKEBUDU(2001) 7 SCNJ 513, ABUBAKAR VS B O & A P LTD (2007) 18 NWLR (PART 1066) 319, L. S. B. P. C. VS PURIFICATION TECH (NIG) LTD (2013) 7 NWLR (PART 1352) 82.

Therefore, I am fortified in the position that by virtue of being a Privy, the Respondent has Locus Standi to commence this action in the trial Court.

However, the Appellant has also argued that the Respondent did not have the Locus Standi to sue on the basis that the Respondent did not obtain Letters of Administration to commence this action, the owner being a deceased.

The General Rule is that a party entitled to Administration can do nothing as Administrator before Letters of Administration are granted to him, in as much as he derives his authority entirely from the appointment of the Court. He then has the same rights and liabilities and is accountable as if he were the Executor. Thus, at law, an Administrator must secure a letter of administration before the commencement of legal proceedings, for he has no right of action until he has obtained them, and even if he obtains a grant afterwards, it does not relate back. Reliance is placed on JEDDO & ANOR VS IMIKO (1972) LPELR-1599 (SC).A person has no locus standi and lacks competence to bring an action in a representative capacity as an Administrator of the Estate of a deceased person until he has been granted the Letters of Administration. Similarly a person who has not applied for nor granted Letters of Administration authorizing him to administer the Estate of a deceased person, cannot defend any action against the Estate of the deceased. In other words, it is the grant of the Letters of Administration that confers the right to sue or be sued in the name of the Estate of a deceased person. See MALLAM VS MAIRIGA (1991) 5 NWLR (PART 189) 114.
However, I consider the submission of the Appellant on the question of letter of administration as a sheer red herring because the Respondent did not sue the Appellant as Administrator of the estate of the deceased, he has sued the Appellant as a privy to the titleholder (his late sister) which he has established to this Court. Therefore, the Respondent does not need to prove to this Court whether or not he possesses Letter of Administration in respect of the Estate of the Deceased before he is eligible to bring this action.

In fact, Courts in England have avoided the harshness and hardship arising from the Rulings in INGALL VS MORAN (1944) KB 160 AND HILTON VS SUTTON STEAM LAUNDRY (1946) 1KB 61 as shown in STEBBINGS VS HOLST & CO, LTD (1953) WLR 603 when the Court held that, an endorsement by a widow of a Writ as widow and administratrix in a claim under the FATAL ACCIDENTS ACTS AND THE LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT, 1934, when at that time, she had not got Letters of Administration, was valid as the endorsement either only described the plaintiff’s personal status and not the capacity in which she brought the action. The Court in that case further held that the widow was right to have brought the claim under the Fatal Accidents Acts and therefore disregarded the use of the words “as administratrix” on the Writ.

Apart from this, it is trite that Administration of Estate Law of Lagos State will only govern an Estate of Deceased if he conducted a marriage under the Marriage Act. In other words, Native Law and Custom shall govern an estate of a deceased who died intestate but conducted marriage under the Native Law and Custom. Reliance is placed on Section 1(3);Section 10; Section 49 (5) of Administration of Estate Law of Lagos State 2003 and the Case Law Authority of OLOWU VS OLOWU (1985) 1 NWLR (PART 13) PAGE 372.

Unfortunately, the Appellant has not led evidence to establish whether the deceased conducted her marriage under the Native Law and Custom or under the Marriage Act. The Appellant cannot tell whether the estate of the Deceased is governed by Administration of Estate Law and thereby making the procurement of Letter of Administration, a Condition Precedent for the Administration of the Deceased’s Estate.

Based on the foregoing, the Respondent has convinced this Court that he has Locus Standi to institute this action and I find difficult to hold otherwise. The trial Court therefore rightly assumed Jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Consequently, issue 1 is resolved in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellant.

SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL ON ISSUE 2
Learned Counsel representing the Appellant submitted that a plaintiff can establish his title to land through five ways as enumerated in IDUNDUN & ORS VS OKUMAGBA & ORS (1976) NSCC 445 PAGE 453 – 454.

According to learned Counsel, going by the pleadings and evidence led before the trial Court, the Respondent had failed to assert, let alone prove, the title of the pius and Udoh families to the property in dispute. No evidence was led to show how the Respondent became entitled to title and ownership of the property in dispute issue and as to how the interest and title to the property in dispute was transferred, devolved or vested in the Respondent. No Custom, Native Law was also pleaded as to how interest was transferred to the Respondent and the Pius and Udoh Family, let alone any. Therefore, the Learned Trial Judge erred in law when it held that the Evidence of Exhibits A – O has established a Prima Facie Case in favour of the Respondent, when the Respondent had failed to establish his Root of Title to the Property in Dispute. Reliance was placed in the case authority of BASSEY VS PAMOL (NIG) LTD (2009) 6 NWLR (PART 1136) PAGE 36.

Still arguing on this issue, learned Counsel submitted that the Respondent has failed to assert that the property in dispute was vested on himself or the Pius and Udoh Families. All that the Respondent pleaded was that he is the brother to the said Madame Nwa Monday Udoh, who allegedly died in 2001. There was thus no Evidence showing how the Property in dispute became vested on the Respondent, Pius and Udoh families. Hence, the question the trial Court failed to resolve was whether the alleged Interest/of a person over a land is automatically (at his/her demise) vested on both his/her immediate and extended family as their Joint Property (Family Property) without any evidence either Custom or Native Law)howsoever to adduce how such land was vested on the said families. Reliance was placed on the Case Authority of MOMOH VS UMORU (2011) 15 NWLR (PART 1270) PAGE 217 AT 247 – 248, ISHOLA VS UBN (2005) 6 NWLR (PART 922) PAGE 422.

Finally, he submitted that the trial Court was in error to have held that the claimant had established that his sister bought the land and put a structure on it and that the Defendant trespassed on the land and thereby discharged the Burden of Proof and is entitle to Judgment in their favour.

Conversely, learned Counsel representing the Respondent stated that anybody relying on acts of possession must establish that the acts extend to a considerable period and are numerous. The Respondent has given a history of the Land and how they acquired the same, which was uncontroverted by the Appellant. He purchased the land in 1973, and took possession of same and started building on it until the Appellant’s incursion in 2008. The Respondent has succeeded in proving same in this case. When there are two conflicting claims on a piece of land, the first in time prevails. Reliance was placed on the Case Authority of AYANWA VS ODUSANMI (2011) MJSC (PART 111), AWODI VS AJAGBE (2014) 12 MJSC.

He further submitted that Respondent has led enough evidence before the trial Court to establish his title and also relied on the purchase receipts issued to them upon the purchase of the land. The Appellant was confusing Title with Succession. When the trial Court finds the Traditional History of a party conclusive, there will be no need for the Court to look at acts of Possession of Parties. It is only when the Court finds the Traditional History inconclusive that it becomes mandatory to look at Acts of Possession. Reliance was placed on the Case Authority of BALOGUN VS AKANJI (2005) 10 NWLR (PART 933) AT 394, OKWARAONONI VS MBADUGHA (2013) 6/7 MJSC (PART 111).

Learned Counsel representing the Respondent submitted that the Respondent had succeeded in proving three (3) of the accepted ways of proving title which are history; possession and documentation, which is more than required of them, and that the Appellant had not adduced any reason for this Court to interfere with the findings of the Lower Court. This Court can only interfere where the finding is perverse. Reliance was placed onthe Case Authority of RABIU VS ADEBAJO (2012) 6/7 MJSC (PART 111) AT 150.

By way of reply, learned Counsel representing the Appellant submitted that the submissions of the Respondent on the Proof of Title was totally unfounded and amounts to a ridicule of the established rule in IDUNDUN & ORS VS OKUMAGBA (SUPRA). The five ways of proving ownership to land applies particularly to only the contender who claims title to land and such contender must proof either of the five ways to himself directly and no one else. Therefore, where the Contender/Plaintiff claims his title is through Purchase Receipts and Title Documents, such Title Documents must reflect his own name and no one else. In the absence of proving his direct connection and title to the Property, the contender must indicate the nexus linking him to one or any of the five ways of Proof of Title to Land. In this instant case, the Respondent was only able to give Evidence on the ways, which the land in dispute was vested in the Deceased, Madame Nwa Udoh and nothing more. He was of the view that the Respondent ought to have shown and proved how the individual Title of Nwa Udoh was vested in the Respondent and by failing to do this, the Respondent failed to discharge the burden on his title to the Property.

He finally submitted that where a group of person/family is claiming for themselves and their families, Legal title to a land, there is an additional burden of proof to show that the family owns the property. Hence the Respondent herein, upon leading evidence to establish one or more of the five ways of proof of ownership to land, must discharge the extra burden on how the property was vested on himself, the Pius family and Udoh family jointly. Reliance was placed on the Case Authority of GAJI VS PAYE (2003) 8 NWLR (PART 823) PAGE 583.

RESOLUTION OF ISSUE 2
Now, the Appellant has submitted that the Respondent has not established how the property devolved on the family of the Pius and Udoh, on behalf of which the Respondent sued. He also argued that the Respondent has not established his title to the property. The Appellant seems to have missed the boat here. The Respondent has not laid claim on the property but rather led evidence and established that the property belonged to his late Sister. The right contention the Appellant ought to have made is to challenge the title of the said sister.

The business of this Court is to consider whether the decision of the trial Court is right that the Claimant had established that his sister bought the land put a structure on it, and further that the Defendant trespassed on the land, thereby discharging the burden of proof and entitling Judgment in their favour.

In the resolution of the issue one above, this Court held that the Respondent properly sued on behalf of his Late Sister and therefore has the Locus Standi to do so.

The Appellant had further contended that the judgment of the trial Court is against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial Court.

Now, the role of the Appellate Court is to consider the way a trial Court evaluated or failed to evaluate evidence before reaching a decision and to what extent and in what circumstances it can interfere with such evaluation or intervene to do its own evaluation. An Appellate Court will only interfere where the evaluation of evidence that led to the findings of the trial Judge.
In GAJI & ORS VS PAYE (2003) LPELR-1300 (SC), the Supreme Court Per NIKI TOBI JSC, held as follows:
“A trial Judge is both a Judge of Law and Facts. He gets in contact with the facts for the first time. As a Judge of facts, he evaluates the evidence of the witnesses. But the law does not give him the exclusive power to evaluate the evidence. Since the evidence of witnesses is duly recorded, an Appellate Judge has the Power to evaluate such evidence, this time around, from the record. If an Appellate Judge finds from the record that the trial Judge properly evaluated the evidence before him, an Appellate Judge has no business to interfere and substitute his own findings and conclusion, just to make the difference and exhibit appellate power. The law does not give such power to an Appellate Judge. But where the evaluation of the evidence, which led to the finding of a trial Judge is perverse, an Appellate Judge is in a good position to reverse such evaluation, and therefore the finding that resulted in the evaluation: this is because the evaluation and subsequent finding is not borne out from the Evidence of the witness.”

In this instant case, the Appellant is contending that the Respondent has failed to prove his title to the land in dispute. Going by the notorious laid down principle in the case law of IDUNDUN VS OKUMAGBA(SUPRA), there are five ways of proving or establishing title to or ownership of land. These are by:
1. Traditional Evidence;
2. Production of Documents of Title duly authenticated in the sense that their due execution must be proved.
3. By positive acts of ownership extending over a long length of time.
4. By acts of long possession and enjoyment of the Land.
5. By 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.
It is settled law that the establishment of one of the five ways is sufficient enough to prove ownership. See AYOOLA VS ODOFIN (1984) 11 SC 120, EWO VS ANI (2004) 17 NSCQR, EWO VS ANI (2004) 17 NSCQR 36, NKWO VS IBOE (1998) 7 NWLR (PART 558) PAGE 354 SC, ADESANYA VS ADEROUNMU (2000) 6 SC (PART II) 18, OMOTAYO VS CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLY ASSOCIATION (2010) LPELR-2662 (SC), EZEANAH VS ATTA (2004) LPELR-1198 (SC).

Now, the Respondent has attempted to prove his late sister’s ownership of the land in dispute by tendering some documents such as Exhibit B, C1, D, E, F, H, I, J, K and N.

Exhibit B is dated 22nd July, 1973 and it is the Purchase Receipt of the Respondent’s Sister, Madam Nwa Monday Udoh, evidencing the Purchase of the disputed land from the OLALORE, ATUKE, and APASA FAMILY. Exhibit C1 is the Minutes of Meeting of the Pius and Udoh family on the 10th August, 2003 on the appointment of Chief Pius Uche, the Respondent in this case, as a Representative of both families.

Exhibit D is a letter dated 21st October, 1986 from the Military Governor’s Office to Surveyor S. J Anthony to carry out the Survey of the site described in the Application Reference Survey.

Exhibit E is a Letter dated 24th August, 1987 from the Land Use Allocation Office to Mrs. Udoh on her Application for Statutory Right of Occupancy and it acknowledged the Receipt of the Completed Application Form for Residential Ratification.

Exhibit F is a receipt dated 3rd August, 1987, Application fees for Residential Plot (ratio). Exhibit G is the Survey Plan dated 24th October, 1986 and it is Ayobo Village near Agege.

Exhibits H and I is a statement of the Appellant to the Police, married to Mr. Fasuyi in 1981.

Exhibit J is the letter to the Police dated 5th September, 2008 of withdrawal of Engineer Fasuyi from the land case because of disrespect from his wife. There is also attached to it a Letter 22nd July, 2008 of undertaken where Mrs. O Fasuyi promised to pay Chief Uche the sum of One Million Naira for Parcel of Land at Ayobo trespassed on by her, on or before 30th August, 2008.

Exhibit K is the Charge No NIK/DC/48/08. Exhibit L is the judgment of the High Court in Suit No ID/334/2001, between J.A OLUWATUDIMU VS AFOSO & 3 ORS.

Exhibit N is the Court ruling in Suit ID/334/01 dated 17th May, 2002.

CW2, Chief Sikiru Aiyedogbon, is the Balogun of Ayobo. He gave Evidence at the trial Court, narrating the Traditional History on the Root of Title of the Olalore, Atuke and Apasa Family Members. He made some cogent depositions as to how Mrs. Monday Nwa Udoh acquired the disputed Land. Paragraphs 6K, L, M, N, O, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 will be produced for ease of reference:
“(k) That there can be no valid sale or alienation of family land in Ayobo without the expressconsent of the Olalore, Atuke and Apasa Family Members headed by the Baale.
(l) That at the time of selling the Land, the Subject Matter of this Suit, to Madam Nwa Monday Udoh, Raimi Afosho, as Baale and Head of the three ruling branches together with BashiruKadumise, MuritalaKadumise, Saka Odedeyi, JimohKiimishe and Elijah as the Principal Family members of the Olalore, Atuke and Apasa Family agreed to the Sale to the Claimant’s Sister in 1973.
(m) That the said Claim by the Defendant that she bought the Land from Bashiru Raimi Afosho is untrue as the said BashiruAfosho is neither the Head of the three branches of the family nor a Principal Member, thus he has no authority to sell any land.
(n) That in 2001, a suit was instituted against the said Bashiru Rahimi Afosho by one of the purchaser of the Land conveyed by the Authorized Representatives of the family and the said Suit was in favour of the Buyer, Josiah AkintoyeOluwatudimu. The said copy of the judgment shall be relied upon by the Claimant at the Trial Court.
(o) That in an attempt by the said Bashiru Rahimi Afosho and his cohorts to challenge the valid sale by theRepresentatives of the family resulted in the two buyers, Chief Hezekiah Owonikoko& Josiah AkintoyeOluwadinmu obtaining an interlocutory order against the said Bashiru Raimi Afosho in Suit No: ID/2293/200 and ID/334/01 respectively. The Claimant shall be relying on the said rulings at the trial Court.
7. That when the Claimant made his complaint to the Kabiyesi, some Chiefs were given the task of investigating the issues and found out the person building on the land, the Chiefs reported that from their investigation, the Defendant was pointed out as the person who was building on the land.
8. That when the Kabiyesi called on the Claimant and the Defendant to attend a meeting on the 20th day of March, 2008 wherein the matter can be settled and the real owners of the Land Adjudicated upon, the Defendant became stubborn that no Ibo man will take land away from her.
9. That when the matter was fully investigated, Kabiyesi held that based on the findings of the Chiefs, the Land in dispute belonged to the Late Madam Nwa Monday Udoh and thus to the Claimant but rather than embrace peace, the Defendant became abusive.
10. That when the saidBashiru Raimi Afosho was called in by the Kabiyesi as to why he would collect money from the Defendant when he did not have the power to sell, the said Bashiru Raimi Afosho stated that he did not know that the Land belonged to someone else.
11. That in spite of the efforts of the Kabiyesi to broker peace, the Defendant had gone ahead to roof the said building, even when the Kabiyesi told her to hold on, pending the final investigation by the Council of Chiefs.
12. The Claimant avers that when all parties were assembled at the Palace, the Kabiyesi commenced a trial with all the parties, in his palace and thereafter delivered a judgment in favour of the Claimant. The Claimant pleads the said judgment and shall be relying on same at the trial Court.

The evidence of Chief IsholaOluwabi, the Ekerin of Ayobo Land, the CW3 corroborates the Depositions of CW2.

The evidence of the Appellant was that she bought the disputed land from the Olalore family on the 10th December, 1999 from the Head of the Olalore family, BashiruAfoso and was given a Deed of Assignment and commenced the building and that the land was not fenced and had no structure onthe land when she started to build and that she is presently living in the house. She further stated that she did not know Madam Udoh or the Claimant until he reported her to the Kabiyesi of Ayobo Land in 2008 and that the Oba Ojijo did not give Judgment on the 20th March, 2008 and that the Claimant used Police to harass her and threatened to kill her adding that she was charged to Court but did not hire touts and thugs as security.

Exhibit P is the Deed of Assignment dated 13th June, 2003. Exhibit Q is the receipt dated 10th December, 1999 issued to the Appellant from the Olalore, Atuke and Apasa Family. Exhibit R – R1 are the Photocopies of the Photographs of the House. Exhibit S is the Receipt dated 12th December 1999 from the Olalore Family only, issued to the Appellant.

The evidence of BashiruAfosho (DW2) is that he sought the permission of the Olalore Family before he sold the land to the Appellant in this case and that he signed as the Head of the Family, and that he did not sell any Land to Madam Udoh in 1973 and that no member of the Family did and that the Family gave the Appellant the Deed of Assignment.

The Evidence of SandraBukola Fasuyi (DW3) is that she is the Daughter of the Appellant and that the Appellant bought the Land from the Olalore Family on the 10th of December, 1999.

Two Photographs of the House were also tendered at the trial Court. Exhibit R1 is the bushy area while Exhibit R is the cleared area.

By the Provisions of Section 131 of the Evidence Act 2011, the Burden of Proving the existence of a fact lies on the person asserting that the fact exists. Reference is made to the case authorities of DEMATIC (NIG) LTD VS UTUK & ANOR (2022) LPELR-56878 (SC), DASUKI VS FRN & ORS (2018) LPELR-43897 (SC), ANAEZE VS ANYASO (1993) LPELR-480 (SC), REPTICO S A GENEVA VS AFRIBANK (NIG) PLC (2013) LPELR-20662 (SC).

It is pertinent to note that there was no contradictions in the testimonies of the Respondent’s witnesses and the documents tendered by the Respondents and as such the Respondent had established title to the disputed land. The trial Court rightly evaluated all the evidence tendered by the Respondent and as such this Court will not interfere with the evaluation of evidence by the trial Court.
From the excerpts of the decision of the trial Court, it appears that the Appellant gave contradictory versions in her evidence. For contradictions to matter, there must be material and substantial. The Court must further consider the nature of the contradiction or inconsistency. For a contradiction to upset a judgment, it must be of such magnitude as to warrant interference with the conclusion reached by the trial Court. See UBN PLC VS CHIEMAEZE (2007) ALL FWLR (PART 364) PAGE 303, OLADAPO & ANOR VS BANK OF THE NORTH LTD & ANOR (2001) 1 NWLR (PART 694) PAGE 255, NJOKU VS JONATHAN & ANOR(2011) LPELR – 4624. Furthermore, where the evidence of the witnesses of one party is contradictory, the party’s case shouldfail. See EBOADE & ANOR VS ATOMESIN & ANOR (1997) 5 NWLR (PART 506) PAGE 490, CHIEF JAMES MOLEGBEMI & ORS VS CHIEF AMOS AJAYI & ORS (2011) LPELR – 4501 (CA),QUEEN VS ASUQUO UKPONG (1961) 1 SCNLR 53.
In this instant appeal, there were many contradictions in the evidence of DW1 and DW2 before the trial Court and their previous statement to the Police. Therefore, the trial Court was right in not ascribing probative value to the evidence of the Appellant’s witnesses. Thus, the trial Court rightly evaluated all the evidence before it and as such this Court cannot interfere with the evaluation of the evidence of the trial Court, as they were not perverse.

On the other hand, the Respondent was able to establish his sister’s title to the land through Traditional Evidence, Documents of Title and Acts of Ownership/Possession. The Respondent presented a receipt dated 22nd July, 1973, Documents of Application to the Government dated back as at 1986 with Exhibits D, E and F. The evidence of the Respondent’s witnesses was also in conformity with the averments of the Respondent in his Statement of Claim.

The argument of the learned Counsel to the Appellant that the Respondent failed to prove the Title of Pius and Udoh families in respect of the disputed land is grossly misconceived. The Respondent succeeded in proving that his sister bought the disputed land and put a structure on it and as such is entitled to the claims sought at the trial Court as a privy of his sister.

Based on the foregoing, I am convinced that the trial Judge’s position on this issue is well justified and I have not found any reason to hold otherwise.

The issue 2 is hereby resolved in against the Appellant and in favour of the Respondent.

To this end, this appeal is unmeritorious and is hereby dismissed.

The judgment of the lower Court in Suit No. ID/1418/2008 delivered on the 26th January, 2016 is hereby affirmed.

ONYEKACHI AJA OTISI, J.C.A.: I read in advance a draft copy of the judgment of my Lord, AdebukunolaAdeotiBanjoko, JCA. I agree with the resolution of the issues arising for determination herein. I see no reason to disturb the conclusions of the learned trial Judge.

I also dismiss this appeal and abide by the orders made in the leading judgment.

MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, J.C.A.: I have read in advance a draft of the leading judgment prepared by my learned brother, ADEBUKUNOLA ADEOTI BANJOKO, JCA, and just delivered. My learned brother has comprehensively treated the two issues formulated by the Appellant and resolved both against the Appellant in dismissing the appeal.

I agree in toto with the reasoning advanced in the leading judgment and adopt same as mine in also dismissing the appeal for want of merit. I abide by the orders made in the leading judgment.

Appearances:

EBU-OLU ADEGBORUWA, SAN, with him, TOSIN ADESIOYE, ESQ. For Appellant(s)

C. J. JIAKPONA, ESQ. For Respondent(s)