CHIEF IGNATIUS OKEKE & ANOR v. P. C. MIKE EZE (2013)

CHIEF IGNATIUS OKEKE & ANOR v. P. C. MIKE EZE

(2013)LCN/6242(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Thursday, the 30th day of May, 2013

CA/L/192/10

JUSTICES

AMINA ADAMU AUGIE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

CHINWE EUGENIA IYIZOBA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

1. CHIEF IGNATIUS OKEKE
2. PRINCE DAZZLING OBIALOR Appellant(s)

AND

P. C. MIKE EZE Respondent(s)

RATIO

MEANING OF THE TERM AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE

Now, when an Appellant, as in this case, complains that the decision of the lower Court is against the weight of evidence, what he means is that when the evidence adduced by him is balanced against that adduced by the Respondent, the Judgment given is against the weight, which should have been given to the totality of the evidence. So, an Appeal against weight of evidence is basically on facts – see Agbamu v. Ofili (2004) 5 NWLR (Pt. 867) 540. PER AUGIE, J.C.A.

BURDEN OF PROOF IN A CLAIM FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND

It is also well settled that in a claim for declaration of title, the onus is always on the Plaintiff to establish his claim, and it is not open to him to rely on the weakness of the Defendant’s case – see Adewuyi V. Odukwe (2005) 14 NWLR (pt. 945) 473 SC, where the Supreme Court held that the standard of proof in such cases is not different from that required in civil cases generally; the only difference rests on the fact that the burden of proof is on the Plaintiff who is claiming title, and that it never shifts to the Defendant throughout the trial – “The difference therefore, lies not in the standard of proof, but on the burden of proof”. PER AUGIE, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT A COUNTER-CLAIM IS A SEPARATE, INDEPENDENT, AND DISTINCT ACTION

It is settled that a Counter-claim is a separate, independent and distinct action, and the Counter-Claimant, like any Plaintiff, must prove his claim against the person counter-claimed before obtaining Judgment on the Counter-claim – see Jeric (Nig.) Ltd. v. Union Bank (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt. 691) 147 SC, and Zenith Bank & Anor. v. Ekereuwem & Anor (2011) LPELR-5121 CA, where it was held –
“It is the law that a Counter-claim is a claim on its own in the same suit whereby the Defendant becomes a Plaintiff or Claimant and the Plaintiff in the action itself becomes a Defendant for the purposes of the Counter-Claim. The procedure of a Counter-Claim is resorted to where the facts of the Plaintiff’s case are also conceived by the Defendant as giving rise to his own reliefs, and claims such relief therein to avoid multiple actions. Thus, the Counter-Claim must pass the test of Pleadings and the burden of proof of assertions under Sections 135 and 137 of the Evidence Act”. PER AUGIE, J.C.A.

MEANING OF THE TERM “FINDING OF FACT”

The term “finding of fact” means a determination of a fact by the Court, averred by one party and denied by the other, and founded on evidence in a case – see Black’s Law Dictionary: 6th Ed. See also Fointrades Ltd. v. Universal Association Co. Ltd. (2002) 8 NWLR (pt. 770) 699, where the court held that any affirmation of fact in a Judgment may loosely be referred to as a finding on that fact, but the term “finding of fact” is more appropriately employed to describe an affirmation of fact made by a Court after considering evidence. There is, therefore, a difference between reviewing the facts of a case and making findings of fact. The latter comes after evaluation of evidence – see Adike V. Obiareri (2002) 4 NWLR (pt. 758) 537. In this case, I have to say that the lower Court did not make any categorical statement or take a decision on the issue of whether the Exhibits tendered by the Respondent are forged. But that is not sufficient ground to overturn its decision because it is not every error or mistake that will result in an appeal against a Judgment being allowed – see Chime V. Chime (2001) 3 NWLR (Pt. 701) 527 SC and Ojengbede V. Esan (2001) 18 NWLR (Pt. 746) 771 at 790-791, where Iguh, JSC, clearly stated that –
“The point must be stressed that what an appellate Court ought to decide is whether the decision of the Court below was right and not whether its reason for arriving at the decision were, and a misdirection not occasioning injustice is immaterial and cannot affect an otherwise unimpeachable decision – – In the second place, it is not every mistake or error in a judgment that will result in the appeal being allowed. It is only when the error is substantial in that it has occasioned a miscarriage of justice of that an appellate Court is bound to interfere”. PER AUGIE, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT WHERE FORGERY OF A DOCUMENT IS IN ISSUE, THE PRIMARY BURDEN IS ON THE DEFENDANT WHO ALLEGES FORGERY

The law is clear and this Court has stated times without number that 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 forgery to prove the forgery alleged by him”.
There we have it – in addition to the trite law that he who asserts must prove – where forgery of document is in issue, the primary burden is on the Defendant who alleges forgery, which is a crime, to prove the forgery alleged by him – see also Adelaja V. Fanoiki & Anor (supra) wherein Karibi-Whyte, JSC, stated –
“I shall now refer to the denial of the 2nd Respondent that the Alade family sold the disputed land – – to Victor Oludemi, which is the crux of their defence to the claim….The contention tantamounts to a denial of the existence of Exhibit “A”. In my opinion where the complaint is that no such document exists, the proof of the existence of the document will be conclusive as to its validity, except where the person challenging the existence of the document is able to show further that the document so proved to exist is a forgery. It is in such a circumstance well settled that the onus of such a proof rests on who alleges – – In such a case since a crime is alleged the burden is on him who alleges to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. 1st Respondent having not led evidence to show that Exhibit A is a forgery has not discharged the burden of proof to show that Exhibit “A” is a forgery”.
And ACB Plc. V. Ndoma-Egba (2000) 8 NWLR (Pt. 669) 389 where it was held –
“Forgery is a criminal offence. The onus is on the party who alleges it to establish the forgery and this he must do beyond reasonable doubt. Where a party denies making a document, which he is alleged to have executed or signed or thumb-printed, such denial is tantamount to saying that the document is a forgery or a fake. In such a situation, the burden of proof of the forgery rests on the party who alleges, since forgery is a crime, the onus of proof on him who alleges is proof beyond reasonable doubt”. PER AUGIE, J.C.A.

AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The dispute over a piece of land situated at Alahun/Osunba Estate, Ajia village, within Badagry Local Government Area, Lagos State, which led to this Appeal, started in 1994, and by an initial Writ of Summons, dated 26th February 1996, the Respondent as Plaintiff sued Oba Haruna Olaiya Okike, the Head of Alahun Osunba Family (deceased) and the Appellants at the Lagos State High Court. Both sides amended their pleadings a number of times, however, by an Amended Statement of Claim dated 18/11/1998, the Appellant claimed –
1. A Declaration that the Plaintiff is the owner and the person entitled to apply for and obtain statutory Right of Occupancy over the parcel of land situate, lying and being at Alahun/Osunba estate, Ajia village particularly described and delineated in survey plan No. – – drawn by S O E Ifowodo, licensed surveyor and dated 6th October, 1984.
2. Possession of the said parcel of land located at Alahun/Osunba Estate, Ajia Village particularly described and delineated in survey plan ES/5941/1984
3. The sum of N2, 402,000 as special damages and cost of things destroyed in the four Plots of land.
4. The sum of N1,000,000 only as general damages by the defendants
5. An Order of Perpetual Injunction restraining the Defendants by themselves, their heirs, servants, workmen, agents, privies, and assigns however from further interfering, trespassing or entering the said parcel of land.

The 1st Appellant, who was the 2nd Defendant, filed an Amended Statement of Defence and Counter Claim dated 25/2/2003, and he counter-claimed for –
1. A Declaration that the 2nd Defendant is the owner and the person entitled to apply for and obtain Statutory Right of Occupancy over all those 2 (two) plots of land lying, situate and being at Alahun estate at Ajia village, measuring – – 1419.657 square meters together with the building and appurtenances (‘the premises’).
2. N5, 000,000.00 only being both special and general damages caused by the Plaintiff’s trespass and destruction of the concrete block fence and building materials on the premises.
3. An Order of Perpetual Injunction restraining the Plaintiff by himself, his servant, agents, privies and representatives from entering into, occupying or using the premises and from further acts of trespass.
The Respondent also filed an Amended Reply to the Statement of Defence and Defence to the Counter-Claim. Adeniji, J., initially handled the matter, and the Respondent testified on 22/3/2000 and was Cross-examined before the case was transferred to Williams-Dawodu, J., who started it de novo on 16/12/02.
The Respondent testified again as CW1 and called Mr. Kolawole Thomas, who gave evidence as CW2. The Respondent tendered the following Exhibits –
1. Exhibit ME1-Daily Times publication dated 21/7/1976
2. Exhibit ME2 – Receipt No 107 dated 30/06/76
3. Exhibit ME3 – Deed of Agreement dated 12/1/78
4. Exhibit ME4 – Contractors quotation dated 5/1/92
5. Exhibit ME5 (a & b) – Survey Plan dated 6/10/84 and receipt dated 7/9/84
6. Exhibit ME6 – Petition to the Police dated 11/06/94
7. Exhibit ME7 – Petition to the Nigerian Police dated 22/06/94
8. Exhibit ME8 (a & b) – Receipts dated 12/1/92 and 26/2/92
9. Exhibit ME9 – Deed of Lease dated 15/3/95
10. Exhibit ME10 (1-12) and ME10 (a) & (b) – Photographs and the Negatives
11. Exhibit ME11 – Survey plan dated 8/10/84

The Respondent said that he bought 4 plots of land from the Family in 1976, which he fenced, farmed on, and dug 2 Wells. In June 1994, the 1st Appellant encroached on two of the plots, and he reported the trespass to the Police, and the police advised them to leave his land. Thereafter, the 1st Defendant offered him an alternative land and he was issued with a signed deed of lease. But he discovered the land belonged to a Pastor, so he rejected it and insisted on repossessing his 4 plots of land from the 1st Defendant and the Appellants.

The 1st Defendant, who died after his testimony, gave evidence as DW1.
The 1st Appellant testified as DW2, and he tendered the following Exhibits –
1. Exhibit ME. 10(a) – Survey Plan
2. Exhibit ME. 10(b) – Photocopy of the 1st Defendant’s Family receipt dated 9/7/76
3. Exhibit ME. 10(c) – Undertaking dated 21/1/92
4. Exhibit ME. 12 – Receipt dated 30/6/76
5. Exhibit ME. 13(a) (b), (c) & (d)- Receipts dated 12/9/94 and 11/10/94

The Appellants’ case is that the 1st Defendant as the head of the Alahun family with other accredited representatives of the family sold 2 plots of land to one Mr. Ebong Ebong, who subsequently sold the land to the 1st Appellant in 1992. When the Respondent started claiming ownership, the 1st Defendant asked both parties to produce their title documents, and informed the Respondent that Exhibits ME2 & ME3 are not genuine as the signature on the conveyance was fraudulently procured and the said family did not issue the survey plan.

Parties filed and adopted their Written Addresses, and in his Judgment delivered on 9/11/09, the learned trial Judge, Williams-Dawodu, J., found that – “the balance of probabilities… tilts in favour of the Claimants” and concluded –

“…The 2nd Defendant failed to establish satisfactory sufficient and clear evidence capable of finding a declaration of title. It is therefore my Judgment that the Counter Claim of the Defendant fails and is hereby dismissed. In the result, the Claimant’s claim succeeds accordingly.”

Dissatisfied, the Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal containing 13 Grounds of Appeal in this Court, and they distilled 4 issues for Determination there-from in their Brief of Argument prepared by Olatunde Oladele, Esq., as follows –

i. Whether or not the Judgment of the learned trial Judge is against the weight of the evidence adduced before the trial judge.
ii. Whether or not the Claimant was able to meet the standard of proof required to establish a right/title to the parcel of land lying, situate and being at Alahun/Osunba Estate, Ajia Village, Lagos, the parcel of land in dispute.
iii. Whether or not the Appellant is a trespasser on the parcel of land lying, situate and being at Ajia Village-Lagos and the Respondent is entitled to order of perpetual injunction and compensation in damages
iv. Whether or not the Respondent as Counter Claimant adduced sufficient evidence to prove his title to the parcel of land lying, situate and being at Alahun/Osunba Estate, Ajia Village, Lagos.

The Respondent, however, submitted in his own Brief of Argument prepared by E. A. Oyebanji, Esq., that the sole issue that calls for determination is –

“Whether or not the Respondent adduced sufficient evidence to prove his title to the parcel of Land lying, situate & being at Alahun Osunba Estate Ajia Village.”

In my view, the Respondent’s sole issue covers the complaints in the Grounds of Appeal, which are centered on evaluation of evidence or the lack thereof, but he included “Response to (the) issues raised by the Appellants” in his Brief, and to do justice to this Appeal, I will address their arguments from that angle.

On the Issue of whether the Judgment is against the weight of evidence, the Appellants submitted that such a complaint arises when a trial Judge fails to consider all the evidence, citing F.B.N. PLC V. Oniyangi (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt. 661) 497; that this Court will interfere with his findings if they are perverse, citing Incar Ltd. v. Adegboye (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 8) 453, Atolagbe v. Shorun (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 2) 360, Okhuarobo v. Aigbe (2002) 9 NWLR (Pt. 711) 29; and that the Judgment of the lower Court is perverse on the following Grounds;

i. The Court relied on the evidence that a well was dug on the land and Exhibits ME1, ME2, ME3, ME4, ME5, ME6, ME7, ME8, ME9, and ME10 to find that the Respondent was in possession of the parcel of land and developed same.
ii. The learned trial judge relied on Exhibits ME2 and ME3 to substantiate its findings in favour of the Respondent whereas the trial Court made no findings on whether the said Exhibits ME2 and ME3 where genuinely procured and or executed by the 1st Defendant and the authorized family representatives.
iii. The learned trial judge retied on the Respondent’s sole testimony that he purchased the parcel of land from Zacheus Olayemi who acted as the representative of the Alahun/Osunba family but the 1st Defendant, the head of the family stated that Zacheaus Olayemi was not duly accredited representative of the family in respect of land transactions and further stated that the receipts procured by Zacheus Olayemi for the Respondent were fraudulently procured.
Furthermore, that the Court has a duty to decide on all the issues raised, and they raised the issue that the documents relied upon by the Respondent was forged but the lower Court did not make any findings on the issue, although it has a duty to evaluate all the evidence before it, citing Atanda V. Ajani (1989) 3 NWLR (PT 111) 511 Okwara V. Okwara (1997) 11 NWLR (Pt. 527) 160.

They also argued that the Respondent’s failure to disprove the allegation of fraud and the lower Court’s failure to make findings on same amounts to perversion of justice; that the burden of proof is on the party who would fail if it is not discharged, and the burden can only be discharged by proof beyond reasonable doubt; that where findings of fact is not in line with evidence led, the appellate Court has power to reverse such finding and re-evaluate the evidence, citing Kamalu v. Umunna (1997) 5 NWLR (Pt. 321) 337, Akwaka V. Lyam (2008) 2 NWLR (pt. 1072) 467; and that this court can re-evaluate the evidence to arrive at a just, fair and equitable decision, citing State V. Azeez (2008) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1108) 39, Fatoyinbo v. Williams (1956) SC NLR 274.

Citing Ojoh v. Kamalu (2005) 18 NWLR (Pt. 958) 533 on the classification of sale of family land, they submitted that the lower Court’s failure to make a finding on whether the sale of the said land to the Respondent is valid or void, amounts to a miscarriage of justice; that it did not consider their testimony that the land was originally sold to Ebong Ebong, who transferred his interest to 1st Appellant; that acts of possession could be taken as acts of ownership, and the burden is on the Respondent to prove the contrary, citing Section 146 of the Evidence Act, Ojoh V. Kamalu (supra); and that the lower Court’s failure to make findings on the issue of validity of sale and acts of possession amounts to a misdirection, citing Akpan V. Udoh (2008) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1075) 590; and that it relied heavily on his statement under Cross-Examination that he met a well on the land but such evidence cannot substantiate the claim since the purpose of Cross Examination is to discredit a witness and demolish the case of the opposing party, citing Olomosola V. Oloriawo (2002) 2 NWLR (Pt. 750) 113.

On the issue of standard of proof, which must be considered along with the issue of weight of evidence, they referred us to the following authorities on the position of the law regarding a claim for declaration of title to land –
Temile v. Awani (2001) 12 NWLR (Pt. 728) 726, U.B.A. Plc. LC V. B.T.L. Ind. Ltd. (2006) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1013) 139, Jules V. Ajani (1980) 12 NSCC 222, Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) NMLR (Pt. 100), P.I. & P.D. Co. Ltd. v. EBHOTH (2001) 4 NWLR (Pt. 704) 495, Jiazu v. Bamgbose (1999) 7 NWLR (Pt. 610) 184, and submitted that both parties trace their root of title to the same vendor – the Alahun Osunba Family, and for the Respondent to succeed he must prove that he has a better title than the Appellant as 2nd Defendant/Counter Claimant.

It is their contention that he did not show a better title because doubts were raised as to the genuineness of the title documents that he tendered, and they referred us to paragraph 16 of their “Amended Statement of Defence and Counter-Claim of the Defendant”, which includes PARTICULARS OF FORGERY, and the cases of Olufunmise v. Falana (1990) 3 NWLR (PT. 136) 1, Okoli v. Morecab Finance Ltd. (2007) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1053)37, Aituma v. State (2007) 5 NWLR (pt. 1028) 466, on the definition of fraud and the law regarding forgery, and argued that since the 1st Defendant denied executing and issuing Exhibits ME 2 and ME3, the burden shifts to the Respondent to satisfy the Court that the 1st Defendant actually signed the documents, which can only be discharged by calling an hand writing expert or comparing the signatures on Exhibits ME 10(a) & (b), which they tendered, with the signature on Exhibits ME2 and ME3.

It was further argued, citing Union Bank (Nig.) Ltd. V. Ajagu (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 126) 341 and Omotosho V. B.O.N. Ltd. (2006) 9 NWLR (PT 986) 573, that the burden of proving that the said Exhibits are not forged or disproving the 1st Defendant’s allegation of fraud in the execution of Exhibit ME3 shifted to the Respondent, and he did not lead evidence to disprove this fact and/or discharge the burden that shifted to him; and that the mere fact that the 1st Defendant denied the execution of Exhibits ME 2 and ME3 is sufficient stand or establishes there was no valid sale/alienation of land to the Respondent.

It was further argued that the minimum requirement to discharge this burden would have been to call an handwriting expert to confirm whether or not the signature on Exhibit ME2 was that of the 1st Defendant or not, citing Tomtec Nig. Ltd. V. F. H. A. (2009) 12 S.C (PT iii) 62, Aituma V. State (supra); that the Respondent had the opportunity to call the said Zacheus Olayemi to testify but he failed and/or refused to, and so Section 146 of the Evidence Act should be invoked against him, citing Udeze & ors V. Chidebe & Ors (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 125) 141; that a party, who had the opportunity to discharge the burden of proof that shifted to him but fails, would not be entitled to the court making findings in his favour, citing Union Bank (Nig) Ltd. V. Ajagu (supra); that the lower court did not make any findings that Exhibits ME2 and ME3 are doctored or forged documents, and its conclusion amounts to speculation, which is not allowed; that misdirection occurs when issues of fact or summary of the evidence is inadequate, citing Okotie-Eboh v. Manager (2004) 18 NWLR (pt. 905) 242; and that the miscarriage of justice by the lower court has led to a wrong conclusion and its Judgment ought be reversed in the circumstances.

On his part, the Respondent also referred us to Sunday Piaro v. Chief W Tenalo (1976) 12 SC 31, Idundun v. Okumagba (supra), Thompson v. Arowolo (2003) 7 NWLR (Pt. 818) 163, Ajiboye v. Ishola (2006) 13 NWLR (Pt. 998) 628 on the different ways to prove title to land, and submitted that he proved his title by producing title documents – Exhibits ME2, ME3, ME 5A & 5B, acts of ownership from 1976-1994, acts of long undisturbed exclusive possession, and possession of the connecting land, citing Ebenogwu V. Onyemaobim (2008) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1074) 396; and that the Appellants tried unsuccessfully to impeach the authenticity and genuineness of his title documents by tendering Exhibit ME 12 but the lower court having placed Exhibit ME 12 side by side with his Exhibits ME2 and ME3, found that the allegation of forgery must fail.

It was further submitted that the lower Court found that the transaction was witnessed and confirmed by his witness, who had a long-time relationship with the said Family and his evidence was not controverted or challenged, and it is settled that a trial Court is entitled to rely and act on the uncontroverted or uncontradicted evidence of a Plaintiff or his witnesses, and in such a case, there is nothing to put or weigh on the imaginary or proverbial scale, and what is more, the onus of proof is naturally discharged on a minimum of proof, citing Shell Pet. Dev. Co. Ltd. V. Edamkute & Ors (2009) 4 NWLR 299, Nwabuko V. Ottih (1961) 2 SCNLR 232, Oguma Ass. Companies (Nig.) Ltd. v. IBWA Ltd. (1988) NWLR (Pt. 73) 658, Balogun v. UBA Ltd. (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 247) 336; that when a trial Court unquestionably evaluates the evidence and appraises the facts of a case, it is not the business of the appellate court to substitute its views for that of the trial court, citing Mogaji v. Odofin (1978) 4 SC 53, Odofin v. Ayoola (1984) 11 SC 72, Ezukwu v. Okachukwu (2004) 7 SC (Pt. 1) 96.

He also argued that the Appellants’ arguments on the issue of forgery is misconceived as the onus is on the person, who alleges forgery, to prove it, and the law requires that any allegation of forgery must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, citing Tewogbade v. Obadina (1994) 4 NWLR (Pt. 338) 49, Cardoso v. Daniel (1986) 2 SC 491, Adelaja v. Fanoiki & Anor (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 131) 137, Jules v. Ajani (1980) 5-7 SC 96. They further argued as follows –
“…The Appellants failed to give evidence to prove their allegation of forgery and at the same time want the trial Court to make findings or form opinion on the facts abandoned or not supported by any evidence (though the Court actually made a findings). It is trite that any fact pleaded but not proved by evidence is deemed abandoned. He who comes to equity must come with clean hands. Our law required the Appellant in proving the allegation to either call signature expert or persons acquainted with the handwriting/signature of the Defendants to give evidence before the court. Any other form of evidence apart from this is inadmissible. See Section 67, 68 and 72 of the Evidence Act 2011…The onus of proof in the case of forgery does not shift by mere allegation of pleading particular of forgery. It is only after evidence had been given in proving such allegation of forgery that the claimant may be called upon to give evidence in disproving forgery”.

The Respondent further argued in response to the Appellants’ Issues 1 and 2 that they adduced no credible evidence with any weight that can be put or weighed on the imaginary or proverbial scale with his evidence; that from the totality of his evidence, it was established that he validly bought and traced his root of title directly to the Alahun/Osunba Family; that he never claimed that he had a land transaction with Zacheaus Olayemi but Aahun/Osunba Family, and the lower Court found that the 1st Appellant could only trace his purported root of title to Mr. Ebong, who was never called as a witness, and the so-called root of title is an undertaking admitted as Exhibit 10C, which shows that –
i. It stripped Mr Ebong of his title in the land having collected his money back and handed back the receipt given to him by Alahun/Osunba Family
ii. It reverted the title in the land back to the Alahun/Osunba Family
iii. It conferred no title at all on the 1st Appellant

He further argued as follows at pages 21 of his Brief of Argument –
“Neither Mr. Ebong nor Alahun/Osunba Family gave any title to the 1st Appellant. Mr. Ebong did not give the 1st Appellant any receipt to show that Mr. Ebong sold the land to the 1st Appellant, the 1st Defendant also denied that the Alahun/Osunba Family gave any receipt to the 1st Appellant. The Exhibit ME12 the 1st Appellant purportedly collected from the Alahun/Osunba Family was said to be forged by both 1st Appellant and 1st defendant and no reasonable court would rely on it. For the 1st Appellant to be able to link his title to Alahun/Osunba family, he needs to collect such title from either Mr. Ebong or Alahun/Osunba Family and present it before the Court or call Mr. Ebong as witness to give evidence as to how Mr. Ebong got his title and passed same to the 1st Appellant. It was the finding of the Court that Exhibit 10C the undertaking does not qualify as a sale from Mr. Ebong to the 1st Appellant…”

In response to the issue of forgery, the Respondent further argued that –
“The Appellants did not only fail to discharge the burden of proving the allegation of forgery as required by the law but misguided themselves as to when such burden of proof will shift to the Respondent. See Tewogbade v. Obadina (supra)… Forgery is not proved by pleading particulars but by testimony of an expert or non expert acquainted with signature of the 1st Defendant. See Section 67, 68 and 72 of the Evidence Act 2011. The Appellants having failed to discharge the burden of proving forgery as required by law is estopped from alleging that the trial court failed to make findings on the issue. The above notwithstanding, it was the finding of the trial court that such allegation of forgery would not stand in the face of the credible evidence adduced by the Respondent at the trial Court-
“If one were to place the receipt Exhibit ME 12 allegedly given to 2nd Defendant by Zacchaeus side by side with the documents by the Claimant, Exhibit ME 12 alone cannot be seen as overturning the said Claimant’s evidence” (See page 395 lines 33-36 of the record of appeal).

In this case, the Respondent was the Claimant at the lower Court but the 1st Appellant, who was the 2nd Defendant at the lower court, counter-claimed for a declaration that he is the owner and the person entitled to apply for the Statutory Right of Occupancy over two plots of land he bought from the Family. It is settled that a Counter-claim is a separate, independent and distinct action, and the Counter-Claimant, like any Plaintiff, must prove his claim against the person counter-claimed before obtaining Judgment on the Counter-claim – see Jeric (Nig.) Ltd. v. Union Bank (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt. 691) 147 SC, and Zenith Bank & Anor. v. Ekereuwem & Anor (2011) LPELR-5121 CA, where it was held –
“It is the law that a Counter-claim is a claim on its own in the same suit whereby the Defendant becomes a Plaintiff or Claimant and the Plaintiff in the action itself becomes a Defendant for the purposes of the Counter-Claim. The procedure of a Counter-Claim is resorted to where the facts of the Plaintiff’s case are also conceived by the Defendant as giving rise to his own reliefs, and claims such relief therein to avoid multiple actions. Thus, the Counter-Claim must pass the test of Pleadings and the burden of proof of assertions under Sections 135 and 137 of the Evidence Act”.
In other words, the Counter-Claimant has the same burden as the Claimant for a declaration of title to land – he must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the case of the person counter-claimed against – see Awosunle & Anor. V. Fagbemi & Anor (2011) LPELR-8912 CA. In this case, both Claimant and Counter-Claimants tendered a number of documents, which are traceable to the Alahun/Osunba Families, who originally owned the land.

The Respondent said he based his decision to buy four plots of land from the Alahun/Osunba Families on Exhibit ME1 – a Daily Times publication dated 21/7/1976 that contains a Public Notice at page 20, which clearly says –
“All the members of the general public are hereby notified that all negotiations on and related to Alahun Osunba Families land at Kirikiri, Mosagbo, Ajia, Alapata, Epetedo and environs must be with David Olayemi, Atiku Lawal, Alhaji Abudu Salu, C.A.O. Suenu and Waidi Akeju, who are now the representatives of the families – (signed) David Olayemi, Atiku Lawal, Alhaji Abudu Salu, C.A.O. Suenu, Waidi Akeju (signed) Oba Aruna Okiki II – The Alahun of Imore, Head of Alahun Osunba Families”.

He tendered Exhibit ME 2 dated “30-6-76” from the “Alahun/Osunba Family Council Office: – Alahun Palace, Imore-Town”, which acknowledged receipt of “Two hundred Naira only being payment for four plots of land at Ajia Village, Alahun/Osunba Estate, O.L.G.”, and was signed by “Dafidi Olayemi”, “Prince Akeju”, “Lawal A.O”, and “Oba Haruno Olaiya Okiki II, Alahun of Imore & Apapa, Head of both Families” [1st Defendant]. He also tendered Exhibit ME3, which is an Agreement dated 12/1/78 – “Between (1) His Highness Oba Haruna Okiki II, the Alahun of Imore and Apapa, and the Head of Alahun and Osunba Families (2) David Olayemi – – (3) Atiku Lawal- – and Prince Waidi Akeju – –

All as Principal Members and Representatives of Alahun and Osunba Families, for themselves and/or on behalf of the entire Members of the Alahun and Osuba Families of Amuwo in Badagry LGA – – (hereinafter called “THE VENDORS” which expression shall where the con so admits include their Heirs, Assigns, Personal Legal Representatives and successors-in-office) of the ONE PART
AND
Mr. Polycarp C. Mike-Eze [Respondent] – – – (hereinafter called ‘THE PURCHASER’ which expression shall where the con so admits include his Heirs, Assigns, Personal Representatives and successors-in-Title) of the OTHER PART
WHEREAS: …
4) The VENDORS as Principal Members and Accredited Representatives of the Families have Power among others to Convey, Assign, Grant Leases and Accept, Surrender of Lease of the Family Land and any portion thereof and to any lawful Acts or Things with regard to the Land for and on behalf of the ALAHUN/OSUNBA FAMILIES.
5) The PURCHASER applied to the VENDORS for the SALE to him of said hereditament and the VENDORS having CONSENTED to the request thereof SOLD the same to the PURCHASER for the agreed sum on N40, 000.00
NOW THIS DEED WITNESSETH AS FOLLOWS:
1) That pursuant to the said AGREEMENT and in consideration of the sum of N40, 000.00 PAID BY THE PURCHASER TO THE VENDORS) receipt whereof the VENDORS HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE) the VENDORS as BENEFICIAL OWNERS hereby CONVEY to the PURCHASER ALL THAT PIECE OR PARCEL OF LAND measuring approximately 2987.370 square Metres being situate and lying at ALAHUN OSUNBA AMUWO, in Badagry LGA of Lagos State, which with its Dimensions and Abuttals is more particularly Described and Delineated on SURVEY PLAN NO. ESL/5941/84 attached hereunder TO HOLD UNTO THE USE OF THE PURCHASER IN FEE SIMPLE ABSOLUTE IN POSSESSION.
2) The VENDORS hereby COVENANT TO INDEMNIFY THE PURCHASER absolutely and without any reservation whatsoever for ALL LOSSES, CLAIMS DAMAGES, COSTS, EVICTION AND/OR ADVERSE JUDGMENT OR DECREE SUFFERED BY THE PURCHASER IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER BY VIRTUE OF THIS AGREEMENT. IN WITNESS whereof the PARTIES have hereunto set their HANDS AND SEALS – – SIGNED SEALED AND DELIVERED BY THE SAID VENDORS (Obo Haruna Olaiya Okiki II, David Olayemi, Atiku Lawal, and Prince Waidi Akeju)-The Foregoing having been first been read over and interpreted to “THE VENDORS” in Yoruba Language by Me – Z. A., OLAYEMI – SWORN INTERPRETER”.

His witness, CW2, Mr. Kolawole Thomas, who is an Estate Agent, testified that he was present when he purchased the said 4 plots of land from the Families. CW2 identified Exhibit ME2 as the receipt given, and Exhibit ME3, which he signed as a witness, as the Deed of conveyance. They both said that “Z. A. Olayemi”, who also signed Exhibit ME3 as a witness, was the Family Secretary. That in a nutshell is the evidence adduced by the Respondent as the Claimant.

But the Appellants averred in Paragraph 16 of their Pleadings that the 1st Defendant’s signature on Exhibits ME2, ME3, and ME12 “is not genuine and is a forgery” when compared with his genuine and regular signature on (Exhibit ME. 10 (b)) issued to Mr. Ebong Ebong from whom [they] bought the premises, and his genuine and regular signature in the 1st Defendant’s Further and Better Counter-Affidavit dated 1/4/97, which forms part of the records of this Court.

The “PARTICULARS OF FORGERY”, which they set out therein, are as follows –
a) The 1st Defendant did not execute or sign Exhibit ME2, Exhibit ME3, and Exhibit ME12 and the 1st Defendant stated so before the Police at Panti and Satellite.
b) The 2nd Defendant did not buy the premises on the 30/6/76 and the Plaintiff too did not buy on 30/6/76.
c) Exhibit ME 2, Exhibit ME 3, and Exhibit ME 12 were all issued in 1994 by Mr Zacheus Olayemi only without the knowledge, consent and authority of the 1st Defendant and with the connivance of the Plaintiff.
d) Mr Zacheaus Olayemi, fraudulently and through deliberate misrepresentation, tricked the 2nd Defendant into surrendering to the said Zacheus Olayemi, the original receipt No. 069 of 9/7/76.

The 1st Defendant, who testified as DW1, maintained the allegation of forgery. He testified that he “will sign first before any Member of the Family signs”; that he “must agree that the land should be sold”; and that they “issued a Family Receipt to Obong when he bought the land”. He further testified as follows – .
“I first met [Respondent] on the land that Obong transferred to (the 1st Appellant) when Eze said he is the owner Okeke brought Eze to me – I demanded their receipts – Eze brought receipt and conveyance – I did not see my signature and any of my representatives. I did not sign the receipt Exhibit ME2 … I never met Eze before until they came to me. This is not my signature, its forged. I did not do this Exhibit ME3. Mr. Olayemi’s father is accredited he was never Secretary of the Family and has no power to sell land. Eze brought documents which were fake and I told him so”.

In his testimony as DW2, the 1st Appellant said he bought two plots of land in 1992 from one Mr. Ebong, who bought the land in July 1976, and introduced him to the 1st Defendant and his family, and he immediately took possession. He confirmed that the 1st Defendant asked them to bring their title documents, and the 1st Defendant said the document he brought “belonged to Mr. Ebong” but that of the 1st Appellant “were not from the family”. He later met Zaccheaus Olayemi, who told him to stop construction because the family wanted to use the land to build a hall, and showed him two plots of land elsewhere but “Mr. Olatunde claimed these two plots of land”. He further testified as follows –
“Zaccheaus asked for the receipt of my land which I gave to him that he would give me another one to bear his name. He told me he was the Family Secretary, … I met Olayemi in 1992. Mr. Ebong gave me (Exhibits ME. 10(b, ME. 10(c)) and ME 10(a))… They are not original but photocopies. Mr. Ebong gave me original receipts. Zaccheaus collected original documents from me. He never returned the original but gave me the receipt. Zacchus has the original of the receipt…”
Exhibit ME. 10(b) is a Receipt dated “30-6-76”, which acknowledges the sum of N150 received from “Ebong O. Ebong… being payment for two plots of land measuring 120 x 120 at Ajia Village, Alahun/Osunba Estate”. It was signed by the same Representatives that signed Exhibit ME2 given to the 1st Appellant, and by the 1st Defendant as the “Head of both Families”. Exhibit ME. 10(c) is an UNDERTAKING made by “EBONG, OTON EBONG”, and it reads as follows –
1. That I have relinquished my interest in the land situate at Alahun Osunba:- Amuwo Badagry LGA, Lagos State (as per survey Plan herewith attached – -).
2. That I have collected back the money which I paid for same amount to (sic) 150, 000.00, which receipt I hereby acknowledge and herewith and back the receipt made in respect thereof.
3. That I hereby consent to the ALAHUN/OSUNBA FAMILY COUNCIL to make sale of the land as if same has reverted back to them and make sale receipt to MR. IGNATIUS OKEKE (1st Appellant) of…”
They also tendered Exhibit ME.12 dated 30-6-1976, which is a receipt for N100 in the 1st Appellant’s name “being payment for two plots of land at Ajia Village, Alahun/Osunba Estate, Amuwo-Kuje – O.L.G.” The 1st Appellant explained that Zaccheaus Olayemi collected the original receipt given by Mr. Ebong, and gave him Exhibit ME12 that is in his name, but when they presented their title documents to the 1st Defendant, he said they were not aware of Exhibit ME12. Under Cross-Examination, he answered questions put to him, as follows –
“I met Zaccheaus in 1992 I got to know him when I bought 2 plots of land from Ebong who introduced me to the Family Members…Zaccheaus issued a receipt in exchange for the one he took…Exhibit ME. 12. Yes he did I said Exhibit ME. 12 is forged. Yes I know the land in dispute. No, I did not buy it from the 1st Defendant’s family…Yes (Exhibit ME 10(c)) was prepared by Ebong. He did not say he has given it back to the family. Zaccheaus took me to alternative place – I went there with Zaccheaus and I wanted to take it but I met Mr. Olatunde there so I went back to the land in dispute. I met a Well there. No I was not there when the well was done.”

In dismissing their Counter-Claim, the lower Court held as follows –
“If one were to place the receipt Exhibit ME. 12 allegedly given to 2nd Defendant by Zaccheaus side by side with the documents by the Claimant, Exhibit ME. 12 alone cannot be seen as overturning the said Claimant’s evidence. Furthermore, the evidence before the Court is that that particular receipt was forged and that the 1st Defendant’s Family had nothing to do with it and Zaccheaus, who issued it. Defence Witness 2 in his own words stated that it was Zaccheaus who issued the receipt as follows Exhibit ME. 12 – “Yes he did, I said Exhibit ME. 12 is forged”.

The major contention of the Appellants in this Appeal is that the lower Court “did not make enough findings on the fact that Exhibits ME2 and ME3 are doctored or forged documents”. I did say earlier that an Appeal against weight of evidence entails reviewing findings of fact made by the lower Court – see Agbamu V. Ofili (supra). The term “finding of fact” means a determination of a fact by the Court, averred by one party and denied by the other, and founded on evidence in a case – see Black’s Law Dictionary: 6th Ed. See also Fointrades Ltd. v. Universal Association Co. Ltd. (2002) 8 NWLR (pt. 770) 699, where the court held that any affirmation of fact in a Judgment may loosely be referred to as a finding on that fact, but the term “finding of fact” is more appropriately employed to describe an affirmation of fact made by a Court after considering evidence. There is, therefore, a difference between reviewing the facts of a case and making findings of fact. The latter comes after evaluation of evidence – see Adike V. Obiareri (2002) 4 NWLR (pt. 758) 537. In this case, I have to say that the lower Court did not make any categorical statement or take a decision on the issue of whether the Exhibits tendered by the Respondent are forged. But that is not sufficient ground to overturn its decision because it is not every error or mistake that will result in an appeal against a Judgment being allowed – see Chime V. Chime (2001) 3 NWLR (Pt. 701) 527 SC and Ojengbede V. Esan (2001) 18 NWLR (Pt. 746) 771 at 790-791, where Iguh, JSC, clearly stated that –
“The point must be stressed that what an appellate Court ought to decide is whether the decision of the Court below was right and not whether its reason for arriving at the decision were, and a misdirection not occasioning injustice is immaterial and cannot affect an otherwise unimpeachable decision – – In the second place, it is not every mistake or error in a judgment that will result in the appeal being allowed. It is only when the error is substantial in that it has occasioned a miscarriage of justice of that an appellate Court is bound to interfere”.

In this case, the question now is – whether the lower Court’s failure to make specific findings of fact on the issue of forgery is weighty enough, and amounts to substantial error that would lead to a reversal of its Judgment by this Court.

To find answers to that question, we will have to ask another question – who has the onus of proving that the said Exhibits are forged? The Appellants contend that since the 1st Defendant denied issuing or signing the Exhibits ME2 and ME3, the burden shifted to the Respondent to prove that the said Exhibits are not forged. But the Respondent argued that the onus is on the Appellants, and referred us to Tewogbade V. Obadina (supra) where Onu, JSC held that –
“With regard to the challenge to the validity of Exhibit A – – his challenge being that the document was forged, forgery being a criminal offence, the Appellant indeed has a burden of proving his case beyond reasonable doubt. – – The law is clear and this Court has stated times without number that 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 forgery to prove the forgery alleged by him”.
There we have it – in addition to the trite law that he who asserts must prove – where forgery of document is in issue, the primary burden is on the Defendant who alleges forgery, which is a crime, to prove the forgery alleged by him – see also Adelaja V. Fanoiki & Anor (supra) wherein Karibi-Whyte, JSC, stated –
“I shall now refer to the denial of the 2nd Respondent that the Alade family sold the disputed land – – to Victor Oludemi, which is the crux of their defence to the claim….The contention tantamounts to a denial of the existence of Exhibit “A”. In my opinion where the complaint is that no such document exists, the proof of the existence of the document will be conclusive as to its validity, except where the person challenging the existence of the document is able to show further that the document so proved to exist is a forgery. It is in such a circumstance well settled that the onus of such a proof rests on who alleges – – In such a case since a crime is alleged the burden is on him who alleges to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. 1st Respondent having not led evidence to show that Exhibit A is a forgery has not discharged the burden of proof to show that Exhibit “A” is a forgery”.
And ACB Plc. V. Ndoma-Egba (2000) 8 NWLR (Pt. 669) 389 where it was held –
“Forgery is a criminal offence. The onus is on the party who alleges it to establish the forgery and this he must do beyond reasonable doubt. Where a party denies making a document, which he is alleged to have executed or signed or thumb-printed, such denial is tantamount to saying that the document is a forgery or a fake. In such a situation, the burden of proof of the forgery rests on the party who alleges, since forgery is a crime, the onus of proof on him who alleges is proof beyond reasonable doubt”.

In any event, Section 138(1) of the Evidence Act 2011, specifically states that –
“If the commission of a crime by a party to any proceedings is directly in issue in any proceedings civil or criminal, it must be proved reasonable doubt”
In effect, the issue of a crime must arise on the pleadings – see Ikoku V. Ilo (1962) NSCC (Vol. 2) 137 at 141, where the Federal Supreme Court explained –
“- – The sub-section only applies where there is a specific allegation of a crime in the Pleadings, so that the commission of a crime can properly be said to be a basis or foundation of the claim or defence, as the case may be”.
In this case, it is the Appellants that alleged the said forgery in their Pleadings and evidence in Court, and so, the onus was on them to prove the said forgery. Above and beyond, they made an allegation of a crime in a civil proceeding, and since the said allegation can be said to be the basis or foundation of their defence to the Respondent’s claim as well being central to their Counter-Claim, they were required to prove the said allegation beyond reasonable doubt.

Did they discharge that burden of proof on them – that is the question? The Appellants’ stand is that they satisfactorily discharged the burden on them when the 1st Defendant, the person whose signature was forged, testified, and the burden shifted to the Respondent to prove he actually signed the Exhibits.

The Respondent’s position is that the Appellants are required by law to call signature experts or persons acquainted with the 1st Defendant’s signature in line with Sections 67, 68 and 72 of the Evidence Act. Section 68 provides –
“When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, customary law or custom, or of science or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, customary law or custom, or science or art, or in questions as to identity of handwriting of finger impressions, are admissible”
Section 72 (1) of the same Evidence Act provides as follows –
“When the Court has to form an opinion as to the person by whom any document was written or signed, the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed that it was or was not written or signed by that person is admissible.”
And subsection (2) of the same Section 72 of the said Act further provides –
“A person is said to be acquainted with the handwriting of another person when he has seen that person write, or when he has received documents purporting to be written by that person in answer to documents written by himself or under his authority and addresses to that person, or when in the ordinary course of business, documents purporting to be written by that person have been habitually submitted to him”.
The Respondent’s point is that it is upon these admissible evidences that the court may be called upon to compare the signature purportedly forged with the one alleged to have been properly made and thereafter form an opinion. He added that the onus of proof does not shift by mere allegation of forgery or pleading particulars of forgery; and that it is only after evidence has been led in proof of same that the claimant may be called upon to disprove the forgery.

The Appellants recognized that “the minimum requirement to discharge this burden would have been to call an handwriting expert to confirm whether or not the signature on Exhibit ME 2 was that of the 1st Defendant or not”, and they referred us to the case of Aituma V. State (supra) wherein it was held –
On a charge of forgery, the Prosecution to make out a prima facie case needs to call a hand writing analyst to show that the handwriting of the person who is alleged to have forged the documents is the same as the one on the forged document … Furthermore, the person whose handwriting is forged is a material witness”. (Underlining theirs]
The Appellants were very quick to shift the burden of proof to the Respondent, but they failed to see that they were the ones to call the handwriting analyst to prove their allegation that the said Exhibits were forged; not the Respondent. Apart from the bare assertion of the 1st Defendant that he did not sign them, there was no evidence whatsoever showing who had forged them and how. Allusions were made to “Zacchueas Olayemi” being the person who forged the Exhibits but the 1st Defendant and 1st Appellant did not categorically say so.

The Appellants also urged us to invoke Section 146 of the Evidence Act against the Respondent for failing to call the said Zaccheaus Olayemi to testify. Pray, where is the evidence that Zaccheaus Olayemi forged the said Exhibits? His father “David Olayemi” is an accredited representative of the said Family, and he signed the Exhibits allegedly forged. But how did the son get to forge the signatures and what did the Olahun/Osunba Family do about the forgery? These questions show the allegation was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

That being the case, the answer to the leading question posed above is that the lower Court’s failure to make specific findings on the issue of forgery was not such a substantial error that will warrant a reversal of its Judgment, and the Appellants’ complaint against its Judgment on this ground lacks merit. What is more, I agree with the Respondent that it was right to conclude that-
“If one were to place the receipt Exhibit ME12 allegedly given to 2nd Defendant by Zacchaeus side by side with the documents by the claimant, Exhibit ME 12 alone cannot be seen as overturning the said claimant’s evidence”.
Exhibit ME.12 is the receipt in the name of the 1st Appellant dated 30-6-1976, which he admitted was forged. His account of giving the original receipt in the name of Ebong O. Ebong to the said Zaccheaus Olayemi so that he could issue him with a fake receipt in his name is enough to destroy his case completely. Exhibit ME. 10(b) is a copy of the Family receipt given to Ebong O. Ebong and it is dated 9-7-76. The 1st Appellant’s case is that he bought the said plots of land from Mr. Ebong, and yet the receipt he accepted in his name is dated 30-6-76. Thus, as the lower court pointed out – the transaction in respect of the said land as contained in Exhibit ME. 10(b) dated 9-7-76 took place after that evidenced by Exhibit ME.12, which bears the date 30-6-76. What this means is that the 1st Appellant accepted a receipt in his name that was definitely forged and presented same to a court of law expecting that court to use the fact of the said forgery to find in his favour that the land in dispute belongs to him. The lower Court refused to do any such thing, and proceeded to hold that –
“The evidence before the Court is that that particular receipt was forged and that the 1st Defendant’s Family had nothing to do with it and Zaccheaus, who issued it. Defence witness 2 in his own words stated that it was Zaccheaus who issued the receipt as follows Exhibit ME. 12 – “Yes he did, I said Exhibit ME. 12 is forged. From the totality of the evidence placed before this Court, the 2nd Defendant failed to establish satisfactory sufficient and clear evidence capable of finding a declaration of title. It is therefore my Judgment that the counter claim of the Defendant fails and is hereby dismissed. In the result, the Claimant’s claim succeeds accordingly.”

Both parties had a lot more to say about different aspects of the case but it is very clear to me that the outcome of this appeal rests on this issue of forgery.

This is because there are very strict limitations on our power to set aside or reverse the decision of the trial Court on issues of fact. This Court cannot embark on a re-evaluation of the evidence and arrive at a different conclusion from that of the trial Court, because an Appellate Court is not permitted to inquire into disputes but to inquire into ways the disputes have been tried and settled – see A. G. Ekiti State v. Daramola (2003) 10 NWLR (pt. 827) 104 SC. What is more, to reverse the decision of a trial Court, which is based mainly and substantially on its assessment of the quality and credibility of witnesses who testified before it, this Court must not only entertain doubts that the decision of the trial Court is right but must also be convinced that it is wrong – see NEPA V. Role (2000) 7 NWLR (pt. 663) 69. In effect, it is the lower court’s prerogative to believe the Appellants or not, and I am satisfied that its reasons for believing the Respondent and finding in his favour cannot be faulted at all.

The bottom line is that the Respondent provided evidence to show that he bought the land in question from the families in 1976, and the Appellants, who tendered a forged receipt in Court, were not able to discharge the burden on them to prove their allegation that the Exhibits he tendered were forged. They also Counter-Claimed for two plots of the land sold to the Respondent, and it is self-evident that they failed to establish their claim to the said plots.

The end result is that the Appeal lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed. The Respondent is awarded costs assessed at N30, 000.00.

JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, J.C.A.: I entirely agree with the comprehensive lead judgment pronounced by my learned brother, Augie, J.C.A.; (P.J.), and adopt the same as mine and have nothing useful to add.

CHINWE EUGENIA IYIZOBA, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading in draft the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Amina Adamu Augie JCA.

After a careful perusal of the Briefs of Argument and the judgment of my learned brother, I am satisfied that his Lordship came to the right conclusion that the appeal lacks merit. The Respondent discharged the burden of proof on him by tendering documents of title to the land. The Appellants who claimed that the document was forged failed to adduce the necessary evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt the criminal allegation. They on the contrary accepted a receipt in proof of their purchase of the disputed land which was indisputably forged. My learned brother exhaustively dealt with all the issues in the Appeal. I adopt her reasoning and conclusions as mine. I agree that the Appeal lacks merit. I also allow the Appeal. I abide by the consequential orders in the lead judgment including the order as to costs.

Appearances

Olatunde Oladele, Esq., with Oladipo Osinowo, Esq.For Appellant

AND

E. A. Oyebanji, Esq., with M. A. Olarewaju, Esq.For Respondent