MRS. DEBORAH FOLUKE ARILEWOLA & ORS. v. CHIEF SOOKO D. GBOLADE & ORS.
(2012)LCN/5274(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 29th day of March, 2012
CA/I/289/2009
RATIO
APPEAL: NATURE OF BRIEF OF ARGUMENT
To save the precious time of the court, counsel and parties, a brief – whether an appellant’s brief or a respondent’s brief, should be brief, concise and even ‘succulent’. In other words, a brief is a succinct statement of a party’s argument in an appeal. See Order 17 rule 2 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2007 applicable to this appeal (now Order 18 rule 2 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2011). See also the case of NWOKORO V. ONUMA (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt. 136) 22 SC. PER MOORE A. A. ADUMEIN, J.C.A.
APPEAL: ATTITUDE OF THE APPELLATE COURT TOWARDS EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE
The law is settled that evaluation of evidence and ascription of probative value thereto are the primary duty of a trial court which had the singular opportunity of seeing the witnesses testify live and watching and assessing their demeanour. See NDUKWE V. LPDC (2007) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1026) 1 and AGBEJE V. AJIBOLA (2002) 2 NWLR (Pt.750) 127. However, I agree with the respondents that, where the findings of a trial court are perverse, an appellate court can interfere with the decision of the trial court – WOLUCHEM V. GUDI (1985) 5 SC 291; DUNI V. NWOSU (1939) 4 NWLR (Pt. 113) 24; MOGAJI V. ODOFIN (1978) 4 SC 91; AKINTOLA V. BALOGUN (2000) 1 NWLR (Pt. 642) 532 and EBBA V. OGODO (1934) 1 SCNLR 372. Furthermore, where the evidence is mainly documentary and evaluation thereof does not involve the assessment of demeanour and credibility of witnesses, an appellate court is in a good position as a trial court to evaluate it. PER MOORE A. A. ADUMEIN, J.C.A.
LAND LAW: WAYS OF PROVING TITLE TO LAND
In the case of IDUNDUN V. OKUMAGBA (1976) 9-10 SC 227, the Supreme Court stated the methods by which title to land could be proved. The methods are five which are independent of one another. The methods are:
(1) By traditional evidence.
(2) By production of documents of title duly authenticated.
(3) By proving acts of ownership numerous and positive enough to warrant an inference that the person is the true owner.
(4) By proving acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land.
(5) Proof of possession of connected or adjacent land. PER MOORE A. A. ADUMEIN, J.C.A.
COURT: WHETHER STRICT RULES OF PLEADINGS APPLY IN CUSTOMARY COURT
The law is that when a matter is commenced in a customary court, the strict rules of pleadings do not apply as no pleadings are required to be filed and exchanged. An appellate court has to examine the claim and the evidence adduced by the parties to discern the controversy and determine the issues involved. See CHUKWUMA V. CHUKWU (1953) 14 WACA 341; NKWO v. UCHENDU (1996) 3 NWLR (Pt.434) 1 and MICHAEL ODUNZE & ORS. v. NWOSU NWOSU & ORS. (2007) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1050) 1. PER MOORE A. A. ADUMEIN, J.C.A.
COURT: ATTITUDE OF THE APPELLATE COURT TOWARDS DECISION OF A CUSTOMARY COURT
The law is also settled that a decision of a customary court, especially on matters within its peculiar knowledge, should not lightly be disturbed without very clear proof that the decision is wrong. See ODUNZE V. NWOSU (supra) at 44 – 45, paras. E – A, where the Supreme Court, per OGUNTADE, JSC exhaustively stated the law as follows:
“With respect I think that the two courts below and the appellate Customary Court were wrong for failing to accord respect to the findings of fact made by the trial court. They also failed to bear in mind that the onus was on the plaintiffs who sued to establish their case. This court has had occasion to warn in the past that appellate courts must pay due regard and respect to the findings of native tribunals. In EMARUERU V. OMOYOUZOU (1977) 2 SC 31 at 42 – 43, this court per Udo Udoma, JSC observed:
“Suffice it to say that in our view the customary court showed proper and sufficient appreciation of the issues in controversy between the parties which issues may accurately be described as peculiarly within its knowledge and its judgment in such matters should not be disturbed. Indeed that was the view long ago expressed by the Privy Council in Abakah Nthah v. Bennieh, 2 WACA 1 when their Lordships said at p.3:
“It appears to their Lordships that decisions of Native Tribunals on such matters which are peculiarly within their knowledge, arrived at after fair hearing of relevant evidence should not be disturbed without very clear proof that they are wrong.” PER MOORE A. A. ADUMEIN, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
CHINWE EUGENIA IYIZOBA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MOORE A. A. ADUMEIN Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
1. MRS. DEBORAH FOLUKE ARILEWOLA
2. TUNDE OGUNESAN OGUNLEYE
3. LASISI ILELADEWA Appellant(s)
AND
1. CHIEF SOOKO D. GBOLADE
2. PRINCE GBADEGESIN ADEBOWALE
3. PRINCE JOHNSON AFOLABI
4. PRINCE ELIJAH ADEYELA
5. PRINCE EDWARD ADEYEMO
(For themselves and other members of Akui family) Respondent(s)
MOORE A. A. ADUMEIN, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The respondents were the plaintiffs in suit No.42/2009 which they filed in the Ipetumodu Grade ‘C’ Customary Court of the Customary Court of Osun State. In their amended writ of summons, the respondents claimed against the appellants in the Customary Court as follows:
“1. Declaration that Akui Family of Akui Wanisan compound, Ile-Ife, is the bona fide owner of plot 14 including enclaves therein, situate and lying in Oyere dereserved area of Ife N.A forest reserve(F3) as shown on Resettlement plan No.TPW735 and stated Land allocation document issued and signed by The Ooni of Ife, Oba Okunade Sijuade, Olubuse II.
2. Declaration that on the reservation of Oyere area of Ife N. A. forest reserve (F3) by the Government for the resettlement of displaced land owners on the site of University of Ife now Obafemi Awolowo University, all enclaves mentioned in second schedule Ife N.A. forest reserve of 1955, including Ogunsesan Ogunleye enclave(25.6 acres) and Ladea enclave (8.6 acres) claimed by members of Ogunleye family(defendants), had ceased to be in operation since they are not perpetual, hence, the whole plot 14 was surveyed by the government in the name of Akui family without making reference to Ogunsesan Ogunleye enclave and Ladea enclave therein as shown on survey plan No. Ife 101.
3. Declaration that on the reservation of communal virgin forest at Oyere area as part of Ife N.A. forest reserve (F3) by the government in 1935. Members of Ogunleye family (defendants) cannot claim to be the bona fide owner of any portion of land within Ife N.A. forest reserve and within dereserved area of Ife N.A. forest including plot 14 allocated to Akui family by the government.
4. Declaration that members of Ogunleye family (defendants), are trespassing on plot 14 lawfully allocated to Akui family by the government in replacement of plot 14 acquired from Akui family at Modomo via Ile -Ife by the government for the site of University of Ife now Obafemi Awolowo University. These declaratory reliefs are brought in accordance with Ife Native Law, Culture, Tradition and Custom.
5. Order of injunction restraining members of Ogunleye family, their tenants, agents, representatives and privies from entering ploy 14 and acts of trespass.”.
The Customary Court heard the parties and their witnesses, visited the land in dispute and delivered judgment whereby the claim of the respondents was refused. The judgment of the customary court spans pages 27 -31 of the record. The respondents were not satisfied with the judgment of the customary court and they appealed to the High Court of Osun State, Ife Judicial Division. The lower court heard the respondents’ appeal, allowed it and set aside the judgment of the customary court. The judgment of the lower court covers pages 151 to 162 of the record. The appellants were dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower court and they filed a notice of appeal containing 7(seven) grounds. The notice of appeal is copied at pages 163 to 171 of the record. The appellants were not satisfied with “the decision with respect to the resolution of issue 1 in favour of the Respondents and the partial grant of the first, fourth and fifth claims of the Plaintiffs/Respondents before the trial court.”
For the avoidance of doubt, Issue No.1 framed and determined in the lower court is hereby reproduced:
“(1) Whether the Plaintiffs/Appellants proved their case in the lower court on the balance of probabilities.”
In accordance with the Rules of this Court, the parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument. At the hearing of the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellants adopted the appellants’ brief filed on the 5th day of October 2009 and their reply brief filed on the 19th day of November, 2009. The appellants relied on their briefs and urged the Court to allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the lower court and affirm the decision of the trial court. The respondents, however, urged the Court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the lower court. In doing so, the respondents adopted and relied on their brief dated the 4th day of November, 2009 but filed on the 5th day of November, 2009. The appellants framed three issues for determination with which the respondents agreed. The three issues are:
(a) Whether the Court below was right in interfering with the findings of the trial court and holding that the Respondents proved their case before the trial court on the balance of probabilities. Grounds 1 & 6.
(b) Whether or not the right of the Appellants over the land in dispute is limited to the enclave as held by the learned Judge of the lower court. Grounds 3, 4 and 5.
(c) Whether the Honourable members of the trial court by their judgment determined the claim of the Plaintiffs/Respondents before the court.
These issues can be conveniently taken and resolved together as the valid question in this appeal is whether the lower court was right in interfering with the findings of the trial court and disturbing its decision.
In their brief, the appellants referred to the decision of the lower court, especially the findings of the learned Judge at pages 155 – 157 of the record of appeal where the first claim of the respondents was partially granted subject to the right of the Appellants to occupy and exercise ownership over their “enclave”. The appellants relied on SALIHU V. CHIDOK (1999) 8 NWLR (Pt.615) 440 at 452 and submitted that an appellate court, where an appeal is on findings of facts, is duty bound to consider the following:
“(a) Whether there was evidence to support the findings and/or the decision of the trial court.
(b) Whether the trial court has made a correct assessment of the evidence before it.
(c) Whether the trial court has accepted or rejected any evidence tendered at the trial.
(d) Whether there has been erroneous appraisal of facts leading to erroneous conclusion in the case.”
It was argued by the appellants that an appellate court should not interfere with findings of facts of a trial court and substitute its own views for them unless the findings are perverse – OYEJEKWE V. ONYEJEKWE (1999) 3 NWLR (PT.596) 482. After analyzing the evidence and relying on the case of MOGAJI V. ODOFIN (1978) 4 SC 91 at 93-94, the appellants submitted that, when the evidence adduced by the parties was weighed on the imaginary scale, the trial court rightly found that the scale of justice tilted in their favour.
The appellants referred to the case of A.G. FEDERATION V. ABUBAKAR (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt.1041) 1 at 140 and submitted that “a finding of facts is not necessarily perverse because of some failure of evaluation of evidence adduced. A finding of fact can only be perverse to earn interference by an appellate if it is not supported by legal and credible evidence before the court”. They finally urged the Court to hold that the lower court wrongly interfered with the findings of the trial court.
The respondents’ brief is rather needlessly lengthy and unwieldy. For example, the respondents response on Issue No. 1 is from paragraphs 3.01 to 3.59 covering pages 4 – 46, a total of 42 (forty- two) pages! To save the precious time of the court, counsel and parties, a brief – whether an appellant’s brief or a respondent’s brief, should be brief, concise and even ‘succulent’. In other words, a brief is a succinct statement of a party’s argument in an appeal. See Order 17 rule 2 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2007 applicable to this appeal (now Order 18 rule 2 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2011). See also the case of NWOKORO V. ONUMA (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt. 136) 22 SC. In any case, I have carefully read both the appellants’ brief and the respondents’ brief and the legal authorities cited therein.
The summary of the respondents’ argument is that the findings of the trial court were perverse and not supported by the evidence adduced by the parties. Relying on their very comprehensive analysis of the oral and documentary evidence before the trial court which they argued was not adequately and rightly utilized, they submitted the lower court was right to have interfered with the decision of the trial court and to have returned a different verdict. The respondents referred to many authorities and urged the court not to disturb the decision of the lower court.
The law is settled that evaluation of evidence and ascription of probative value thereto are the primary duty of a trial court which had the singular opportunity of seeing the witnesses testify live and watching and assessing their demeanour. See NDUKWE V. LPDC (2007) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1026) 1 and AGBEJE V. AJIBOLA (2002) 2 NWLR (Pt.750) 127. However, I agree with the respondents that, where the findings of a trial court are perverse, an appellate court can interfere with the decision of the trial court – WOLUCHEM V. GUDI (1985) 5 SC 291; DUNI V. NWOSU (1939) 4 NWLR (Pt. 113) 24; MOGAJI V. ODOFIN (1978) 4 SC 91; AKINTOLA V. BALOGUN (2000) 1 NWLR (Pt. 642) 532 and EBBA V. OGODO (1934) 1 SCNLR 372. Furthermore, where the evidence is mainly documentary and evaluation thereof does not involve the assessment of demeanour and credibility of witnesses, an appellate court is in a good position as a trial court to evaluate it.
Are the relevant findings of fact by the trial court perverse? The respondents claimed ownership of “Plot 14 including enclaves therein, situate and lying in Oyere de reserved area of Ife N.A. forest reserve (F3) as shown on Resettlement plan No TPW735 and stated (in) Land allocation issued and signed by The Ooni of Ife, Oba Okunade Sijuwade, Olubuse II”. Therefore, the respondents relied on documents of title as the basis for their claim of ownership of the land in dispute. The respondents are entitled to rely on documents of title as this is one of the legally accepted and recognized ways of proving ownership of land. In the case of IDUNDUN V. OKUMAGBA (1976) 9-10 SC 227, the Supreme Court stated the methods by which title to land could be proved. The methods are five which are independent of one another. The methods are:
(1) By traditional evidence.
(2) By production of documents of title duly authenticated.
(3) By proving acts of ownership numerous and positive enough to warrant an inference that the person is the true owner.
(4) By proving acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land.
(5) Proof of possession of connected or adjacent land.
The relevant documents of title relied on by the respondents principally are “Allocation of Land in Forest Reserve Area” dated the 14th day of June, 1989 by which the disputed land was allocated to the respondents by Oba Okunade Sijuwade, Olubuse II, Ooni of Ife admitted in the trial court as exhibit A14 and sundry survey plans – exhibits A5, A12 and A13. Exhibit A13; although undated, is the Resettlement Plan No. TPW 735 in which plot 14 is indicated as belonging to the respondents.
The respondents’ case in the trial court, as borne out by pages 19 to 23 of the record of appeal is that the government of Western Region of Nigeria by a notice published on March 13, 1960 compulsorily acquired their land at Modomo; their Akui family wrote to the government; government surveyors were sent to measure the land so acquired; as a result of a meeting which they held with Aafin on August 1, 2, 1966; the government paid for the crops on the land and promised to give them another parcel of land but no land was given to them on time; the displaced landowners formed an Association of Ife University Land Owners and after much pressure they were given the disputed land – plot 14 in Resettlement Plan No. TPW 735 (exhibit A13) vide Allocation of Land in Forest Reserve Area (exhibit A14).
The case of the appellants was that the farmland in dispute was their forefather’s farmland; that they suddenly saw the respondents on their land and when they asked why they were there, the respondents said that they were looking for plot 14; the appellants replied that there was no plot 14 on their land; the matter went to the Ooni of Ife, Oba Sijuwade who asked why the appellants were claiming the land and they explained how U.A.C. officials went to obtain permission from their forefather to fell trees – that the then Ooni led the UAC officials there; their father wrote a letter to the Ooni and U.A.C. officials; a document permitting them to farm on the land was tendered by the appellants as exhibit B1; that Ooni Oba Sijuade said that since the land allotted to the respondents was already occupied by the appellants the respondents should ask for a new plot of land.
The facts as summarized above are not in dispute. It is also a fact admitted by both parties that the trial court visited the land in dispute.
Exhibit B1 tendered by the appellants is copied at pages 89 – 90 of the record of appeal. It is titled “SECOND SCHEDULED IFE N.A. FOREST RESERVE” and under Part 2(ii), 2(iii), 2(iv) and 2(v) “Ogunleye and his successors” were given various parcels of land to farm. Part 1 of exhibit B1 reads partly thus:
“The holders of farming rights have the right to reside within their respective farming areas described in Part 2 of this Schedule.”
Exhibit B1 was signed by Aderemi Ooni of Ife, Chief Makinde the Obalufe, Chief Omisore the Jaaran, E.T Latunde Counsellor and E.T. Ladipo Counsellor and witnessed by M. A. Fabunmi (Administrative Secretary) “For Ife Native Authority” and it was approved on the 21st day of January, 1955 by J. H Beeley, Ag. Resident Oyo Province.
It is obvious, therefore, that both parties are relying on documents of title, both endorsed by the highest traditional authority in Ife land – the Ooni of Ife, one by a previous Ooni and the other by the present Ooni. The respondents, as the claimants in the trial customary court, had the burden of satisfactorily proving their claim that they are “the bonafide owner of plot 14 including enclaves” therein and they must succeed on the strength of their case and not on weakness of their opponents’ case/defence – KODILINYE V. ODU (1935) 2 WACA 336 and MOGAJI V. CADBURY NIGERIA LTD (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt.7) 393. In this respect, the respondents ought to prove that the right to reside and farm on the disputed land granted to the appellants’ forebearer and his successors by Oba Aderemi, Ooni of Ife in 1955 is inferior to the right granted them in 1989 to “hold and use” the land by Oba Okunade Sijuwade, Olubuse II, the present Ooni of Ife. On the printed record there is no such evidence.
Unless and until it is shown that the allocation made in 1989 extinguishes the rights granted the appellants in 1955, the respondents have failed to show that they have a better title to the disputed land since both grants were made by two undisputed Oonis of Ife. As a matter of fact, the grant in favour of the appellants is about 34 (thirty- four) years earlier in time. It has not been shown that the rights granted by Oba Aderemi in 1955 in favour of the appellants’ were wrongly or fraudulently made. It is a settled principle that were the equities are equal the first in time prevails.
If the documents of the title relied upon by the respondents and the appellants are ineffectual or inconclusive in respect of their contending claims, the court can approach and determine the matter by reference to acts within living memory- See EBUEKE V. AMOLA (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt.75) 128 SC.
In the present case, the trial court visited the disputed land and found that “Ogunleye family had planted several acres of the land with cocoa, kolanuts, palm trees etc” and that “Infact Ogunleye’s family have occupied a large area of the land.” The trial court then stated further, inter alia, as follows:
“We (members of this honourable court who visited the locus inquo) asked members of Akui family Mr. Gbadegesin and his people who own the cocoa and kolanut plantation they responded that they do not know them and that they are trespassers,”
In view of the available evidence before it, the findings of the trial court are not unreasonable, unwarranted nor perverse. The decision of the lower court that the respondents (appellants in that court) proved their case on preponderance of evidence or balance of probabilities and that the findings of the trial court were perverse cannot be supported having regard to the facts of this case.
As stated earlier, the respondents did not prove their claim against the appellants on the preponderance of evidence. They even claimed that they were entitled to the ownership of the appellants’ enclaves but woefully failed to prove that the right granted to the appellants by the late Ooni of Ife in 1955 were limited to parcels or “enclaves” within the celebrated “Plot 14”.
In its judgment the trial court held that to “ask Ogunleye family to quit and make way is to create three problems” and the problems were highlighted. The trial court then proceeded to state thus:
“Our final ruling is that if Ogunleye family have to be displaced from Oyere forest reserve, due process should be followed i.e. they have to be informed vide government circular, gazette, letter or government publication. This will enable the (sic) put up claims for their assets on the land; the government having paid them compensation and make a resettlement scheme. It is then they can be displaced by Akui family. Any attempt to force them out of their place of work and a place where their assets lie (i.e. Ogunleye family) will be very unjust.”
The court then advised the respondents as follows:
“Akui family should go back to our father the Ooni for final resettlement since vast land still abound in Ife forest reserve… He has compassion for his children. He will finally resettle Akui family”.
It should be borne in mind that the named respondents commenced their action in a representative capacity, namely “For themselves and other members of Akui family.”
The judgment of the trial court, parts of which were reproduced or highlighted in this judgment, in my view adequately determined the respondents’ claim. The law is that when a matter is commenced in a customary court, the strict rules of pleadings do not apply as no pleadings are required to be filed and exchanged. An appellate court has to examine the claim and the evidence adduced by the parties to discern the controversy and determine the issues involved. See CHUKWUMA V. CHUKWU (1953) 14 WACA 341; NKWO v. UCHENDU (1996) 3 NWLR (Pt.434) 1 and MICHAEL ODUNZE & ORS. v. NWOSU NWOSU & ORS. (2007) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1050) 1.
The law is also settled that a decision of a customary court, especially on matters within its peculiar knowledge, should not lightly be disturbed without very clear proof that the decision is wrong. See ODUNZE V. NWOSU (supra) at 44 – 45, paras. E – A, where the Supreme Court, per OGUNTADE, JSC exhaustively stated the law as follows:
“With respect I think that the two courts below and the appellate Customary Court were wrong for failing to accord respect to the findings of fact made by the trial court. They also failed to bear in mind that the onus was on the plaintiffs who sued to establish their case. This court has had occasion to warn in the past that appellate courts must pay due regard and respect to the findings of native tribunals. In EMARUERU V. OMOYOUZOU (1977) 2 SC 31 at 42 – 43, this court per Udo Udoma, JSC observed:
“Suffice it to say that in our view the customary court showed proper and sufficient appreciation of the issues in controversy between the parties which issues may accurately be described as peculiarly within its knowledge and its judgment in such matters should not be disturbed. Indeed that was the view long ago expressed by the Privy Council in Abakah Nthah v. Bennieh, 2 WACA 1 when their Lordships said at p.3:
“It appears to their Lordships that decisions of Native Tribunals on such matters which are peculiarly within their knowledge, arrived at after fair hearing of relevant evidence should not be disturbed without very clear proof that they are wrong.”
For the avoidance of doubt, and without more, all the 3 (three) issues in this appeal are hereby resolved in favour of the appellants against the respondents.
One worrisome aspect of this case is the apparent reluctance of the respondents to go back to the Ooni of Ife for allocation of another plot of land to them in view of the fact that the appellants had been in undisturbed possession of the land for about 34 years before the land was purportedly given to the respondents. I find it difficult to understand why the respondents are insisting on having ownership of the land when the appellants have plantations of economic trees thereon and their right to use and enjoy same has not been revoked. The respondents ought not to have even waited for the trial court to advise them to do the right and proper thing, that is reverting to their traditional grantor – the Ooni of Ife for an alternative parcel of land. It appears that the respondents are merely desperately hoping to reap bumper harvests from the appellants’ economic trees which the respondents did not plant or sow. Commonsense dictates that when a piece of land or even any property is granted or given to a person and the beneficiary finds it difficult or impossible to take possession thereof and use and enjoy it, he should revert to the grantor or giver of the land or property for necessary advice or action.
In sum, this appeal has merit and it is hereby allowed. The judgment of the lower court delivered in Suit No. HIF/1A/2007 on the 11th day of March, 2009 is hereby set aside. The judgment of the trial Customary Court delivered on the 6th day of June, 2007 in Suit No.42/2006 is hereby affirmed.
The sum of N75,000.00 is hereby awarded as costs in favour of the appellants against the respondents.
KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, J.C.A.: I have read in advance the judgment of my learned brother, MOORE A. A. ADUMEIN, JCA just delivered. His Lordship has meticulously dealt with and ably resolved all the issues in contention between the parties. I agree with his reasoning and conclusion that the trial customary court having had the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses and also visiting the locus in quo properly performed its primary duty of evaluating the evidence before it and ascribing probative value thereto. The clear and uncontested evidence before the court was that the Ogunleye family had been on the land in dispute as far back as 1933 by virtue of a document signed by the erstwhile Ooni of Ife, Oba Aderemi prior to the allocation of Plot 14 within the same land to the Respondents in 1989 by the present Ooni of Ife, HRH Oba Sijuwade Olubuse II in replacement of land acquired by the Government in 1962 for the establishment of University of Ile Ife, now Obafemi Awolowo University. It was also not in dispute that the Akui family had been paid compensation for their holdings on the acquired land.
Having carefully examined the record of proceedings of the trial customary court, I agree with my learned brother in the lead judgment that the respondents as appellants at the court below failed to show that the findings of the trial customary court were perverse. The findings are fully supported by the evidence before it.
Where the trial court has correctly performed its duty of evaluation of evidence and ascription of probative value thereto, it is not the duty of an appellate court to interfere with such findings and substitute its own view for the views of the trial court. See: Onyejekwe vs. Onyejekwe (1999) 3 NWLR (596) 482 @ 496 A; Odunze vs. Nwosu (2007) 13 NWLR (1050) 1 @ 44 – 45 E – A; Wilbahi Investments Ltd., & Anor vs. Archspan Consult Ltd. (2009) LPELR – CA/99/M/07
For these and the more detailed reasons advanced in the lead judgment, I also allow the appeal; I abide by the consequential orders therein contained including the order for costs.
CHINWE E. IYIZOBA, J.C.A.: I read before now the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, MOORE ADUMEIN JCA. Upon perusal of the record of appeal and the briefs of argument of the parties, I am of the view that my learned brother considered and resolved all the issues in contention in the appeal. I agree with the reasoning contained therein and the conclusions arrived thereat.
The findings of the trial customary court as set out in the lead judgment were unassailable. The lower court clearly went beyond its powers as an appellate court to substitute its views for those of the trial court in the guise that the findings of the court were perverse. There was credible evidence to support the findings of the customary court and the court rightly dismissed the respondents’ claims. I agree that this appeal has merit. I also allow the appeal. I abide by all the consequential orders in the lead judgment including the order as to costs.
Appearances
Oluwasesan Dada, Esq. with Hakeem Oianiyan, Esq.For Appellant
AND
Layi Ayinde, Esq. with B. O. Alfred, Esq.For Respondent
