ELDER ASUQUO NSEOBOT & ORS v. MR EKEMINI JEREMIAH ANDERSON
(2015)LCN/7908(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Wednesday, the 17th day of June, 2015
CA/C/35/2013
RATIO
EVIDENCE: PROVING TITLE TO LAND; WAYS OF PROVING TITLE TO LAND
It is now well settled that there are five ways to establish a claim of title to land. These are traditional evidence, production of title documents with proof of execution, acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time, numerous and positive enough to prove ownership, acts of long possession and enjoyment of land and proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances rendering it probable that the owner of such adjacent land would in addition be the owner of the land in dispute.
See PLATEAU INVESTMENT PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD VS EBHOR (2001) FWLR (PT 64) 374 at 415 and IDUNDUN vs OKUMAGBA (1976) NMLR 100 at 210. per. JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.
COURT: DUTY OF COURT; DUTY OF THE TRIAL COURT TO EVALUATE EVIDENCE AND ASCRIBE PROBATIVE VALUE TO IT
According to IGUH, JSC: In this regard it is long settled that the evaluation of evidence and the ascription of probative value to such evidence are the primary functions of a Court of trial which heard and assessed the witnesses, where a Court of trial unquestionably evaluates the evidence and justifiably appraises the facts, it is not the business of the Court of Appeal to substitute its own views for those of the trial Court. what the Court of Appeal ought to do is to find out whether there is evidence on which the trial Court could have acted. once there is sufficient evidence on record from which the trial court made its findings, the appellate Court cannot interfere.” See AGBEJE VS AGBA AKIN (2002) 9 NSCQR 1 at 18-19. per. JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
PAUL OBI ELECHI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
ELDER ASUQUO NSEOBOT
OKON EDET UBIT
ETIM OKON USANGA
ISIDORE ITUEN
ASUQUO JOHNSON UDO
BASSEY ENO
EDEM EFFIONIG Appellant(s)
AND
MR. EKEMINI JEREMIAH ANDERSON Respondent(s)
JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment):
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Akwa Ibom State sitting at Uyo delivered on the 22nd day of October, 2012.
The respondent had on 18th June, 1996 taken out a writ of summons against the appellants. His reliefs contained in paragraph 22 of the FURTHER AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM on pages 89-92 of the record of appeal are as follows:
(i) A declaration of statutory right of occupancy over all that piece of land known as ‘EDEM EKO ETIM IBANGA’ lying situate at Ewet Offot, Uyo within the jurisdiction of this Court.
(ii) An order cancelling all Certificates of Occupancy issued to any of the defendants herein over any part of the land here in dispute.
(iii) N500,000.00 as general damages for trespass.
(iv) A perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, and privies from further trespassing upon the land or in any way interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of same.
On being served, the
1
defendants now appellants entered appearance and filed pleadings.
The pleadings were amended several times and after moving from one Judge to the other, the case was eventually heard and determined by Andrew Okon J. in a considered judgment delivered as earlier mentioned, on the 22nd October, 2012 wherein he found for the respondent and dismissed the counter-claim of the defendants.
Dissatisfied, the defendants appealed to this Court via a notice of appeal filed on 3rd January, 2013 containing 4 grounds.
At the hearing of the appeal the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Okon adopted his brief of argument filed on the 29th April, 2013 but deemed properly filed and served on the 12th February, 2014. He equally adopted his reply brief filed on 8th October, 2014. In his main brief he distilled and argued 4 issues for determination as follows:
1. Whether the admission of the plaintiff/ respondent’s plan without objection by the defendants/appellants meant that the area of land in dispute as claimed by the Plaintiff was established, when the plaintiff failed to proof the extent and identity of the land compared to the extent and
2
identity of his land in Suit No. HU/119/88 and the area allegedly trespassed by him in Suit No. HU/228/94.
2. Whether the plaintiff/respondent’s root of title was established when there was no witness from the families of those who sold the land to his late father and/or boundary neighbours.
3. Whether evidence of the plaintiff and his lone witness vis a vis that of the defendant and their witnesses were properly evaluated by the trial Judge before arriving at its decision.
4. Whether the defendants were not entitled to their claim in view of the quality of evidence presented at the trial Court.
For the respondent, his learned counsel Mr. Ezeibe adopted his brief filed on 23rd September, 2014 but deemed properly filed and served on 24th September, 2014. On his part he identified and argued 2 issues for determination as follows:
1. Whether the respondent as the plaintiff at the trial had proved his case (title to land) to entitle him to judgment in his favour.
2. Whether the trial Court properly evaluated the evidence adduced by the respective
3
parties before arriving at its decision.
A juxtaposition of the issues formulated by both sides and the arguments canvassed shows that issues 1 and 2 of the appellants were subsumed in issue 1 of the respondent while issues 3 and 4 of the appellants were taken care of by issue 2 of the respondent. That being so the issues shall be considered in that con.
I will accordingly commence with issues 1 and 2 of the appellants taken together with issue 1 of the respondent to wit:
1. Whether the admission of the plaintiff/respondent’s plan without objection by the defendants/appellants meant that the area of land in dispute as claimed by the plaintiff was established, when the plaintiff failed to proof the extent and identity of the land compared to the extent and identity of his land in Suit No. HU/119/88 and the area allegedly trespassed by him in Suit No. HU/229/94.
2. Whether the plaintiff/respondent’s root of title was established when there was no witness from the families of those who sold the land to his late father and/or boundary neighbours. And
3. Whether the respondent as the
4
plaintiff at the trial had proved his case (title to land) to entitle him to judgment in his favour.
Arguing this issue, Mr. Okon referred to the pleadings and adduced evidence and submitted that the respondent as plaintiff failed to adduce evidence of the exact dimension of the land bought by his late father in 1954 and passed to him as gift inter vivos 1975 and after tendering a survey plan failed to call the boundary neighbors as witnesses thereby failing to establish with certainty the area of land involved. He referred to ONWE ONU & ORS VS OKE AGU & ORS (1996) 5 SCNJ 74 at 85 and OJEIFO EIGBEJALE VS EBHOMIENLE OKE & ORS (1996) 5 SCNJ 49 at 65.
He further submitted that Exhibits A the survey plan tendered by the respondent in the present suit was different in features from Exhibit C1 tendered in an earlier suit and that the failure of the appellants to object to the admissibility of the said survey plan Exhibit A did not confer probative value thereon.
He further submitted that although the respondent traced his root of title to his late father, he failed to call any witness from the families of those who sold to his
5
late father as his duty was not just to trace to his father but also to establish how his father became seised of the land. He referred to NRUAMA VS EBUZOEME (2007) ALL FWLR (PT 347) 723 at 739- 740 and MOGAJI & ORS VS CADBURY & ORS (1985) 2 NWLR (PT 7) 393 at 395.
In his reply brief, the learned counsel submitted that respondent failed to respond to his arguments and is deemed to have conceded it. He urged the Court to resolve the issue in appellants’ favour.
On his part Mr. Ezeibe submitted that while it is imperative for a party seeking declaration of title to establish the identity of land claimed, the respondent gave oral and documentary evidence at the trial while the appellants failed to adequately controvert the averments in the respondent’s pleadings on the issue and were justifiably deemed to have admitted the fact. He referred to KOTUN VS OLASEWERE (2010) 1 NWLR (PT 1175) 411 at 416, LCC vs OGUNBIYI (1969) 1 ALL NLR 297 at 299 and NBC PLC vs OLAREWAJU (2007) 5 NWLR (PT 1027) 225 at 259-260.
He submitted further that the admission of the appellants reduced the evidential burden on the respondent to establish his root of title
6
and that he adduced sufficient evidence in the circumstances to entitle him to his relief in this regard. He referred to ANUKAM VS ANUKAM (2008) 5 NWLR (PT 1081) 455 at 458.
He also submitted that the respondent relied on long undisturbed possession and various acts of ownership exercised by the respondent in contrast to the evidence adduced by the appellants who failed to impeach the testimony of the appellant that 1st appellant earlier attempted to purchase the land in dispute from him before the commencement of hostilities.
He drew the Court’s attention to the defects in the appellants’ case which included the failure to establish their root of title and the documents of title made while litigation was on and urged the Court to hold that the appellants did not make out a better title. He referred to EZE OKONKWO vs OKEKE (2002) 31 WRN 59, AMAKOR VS OBIEFUNA (1974) 3 SC 67, AUDU vs NDUBUISI (1991) 3 NWLR (PT 493) 306 and UGORJI vs ONWU (1991) 3 NWLR (PT 178) 177.
He submitted that the certificates of occupancy tendered by the appellants were merely prima facie evidence of exclusive possession and accordingly rebuttable in the face of better
7
title. He referred to EDEBIRI VS DANIEL (2009) 8 NWLR (PT 1142) 15 at 19.
He submitted that from the survey plans tendered by both sides the identity of the land in dispute was common to them although they both referred to it in different names which did not derogate from the identity and that the failure to call boundary men was inconsequential. He referred to NWOKOROBIA vs NWOGU (2009) 10 NWLR (PT 1150) 563 and NWANKWO vs OFOMATA (2009) 11 NWLR (PT1153) 496 at 502.
He urged the Court to find for the respondent.
The response of the appellant as contained in the reply brief was to the technical appropriateness of the respondent’s brief which shall be discountenanced in the view of the earlier appraisal made of the formulated issues.
The first point here relates to the identity of the land in dispute.
It is well established that the primary duty of a party seeking declaration of title to a piece of land is to establish the identity of the said land. This Court per ABBA AJI, J.C.A. held as follows:
“It is trite law that before a declaration of title to land is granted, the land to which the claim relates must be
8
identified with certainty and that it is the duty of the plaintiff in such a case to show the court clearly the area of the land to which the claim relates and if not so ascertained, the claim must fail.”
See OLOKUNLADE vs ADEMILOYO (2011) 14 NWLR (PT 1269) 72 at 95.
In this regard IGHU, JSC stated as follows:
“There can be no doubt that the most common and, perhaps, the easiest way of establishing the precise area of land in dispute is by the production of a survey plan of such land. It is, however, equally clear that it is not in all cases for declaration of title to land that it is necessary to survey and/or tender the survey plan of the land in dispute. There are many cases in which no survey plans are essential for a proper determination of the issue. What the Court must consider is whether, in a particular case, it is necessary for the proper trial of the action for a survey plan to be produced. Where there is no difficulty in identifying the land in dispute, a declaration of title may be made without the necessity of tying it to a survey plan. See Chief Sokpui V. Chief Tay Agbazo (1951) 13 WACA 241,
9
Chief Daniel Ibuluya V. Dikibo (1976) 6 SC 97 etc.
Similarly, where the identity of the land in dispute is not in issue between the parties, no onus, naturally, lies on a claimant for declaration of title to such land to prove the said identity as that fact is not an issue for determination between the parties in the suit.
See Atolagbe V. Shorun (1995) 1 NWLR (part 2) 360 at 365”. See ALHAJI GONI KYARI VS ALHAJI CIROMA ALKALI & ORS (2006) 6 NSCQR 819 at 837.
The respondent herein pleaded the identity of the land in paragraph 6 of the Further Amended statement of claim as follows:
“The land in dispute is covered by the plaintiff’s survey plan No CSC/AK/405/96 (I.D) by C.S. Akpan, MSC MNIS, filed alongside this statement of claim, and CSC/AK/405/96 (I.D) and will found his case thereupon, and shall rely on the boundaries and other features as shown on the said plan.”
Page 268 of the record of proceedings contains as follows on lines 4-11 as follows:
“Re-sworn on Bible and states in Ibibio through Court interpreter. I remember that on 16/3/2009, I partly
10
testified in this case. I told the Court that I made land in dispute survey plan. This is the survey plan.
Ezeibe Esq: I seek to tender the survey plan in exercise.
Akpan Esq No objection
COURT: The plaintiff’s survey plan of land in dispute No.CSC/AK/405/96 (I.D) dated 16/12/96 is admitted in evidence as Exhibit A.”
The respondent anchored his case on the identity of the land he claimed before the trial Court on Exhibit A which was tendered and admitted in evidence without objection.
The finding of the learned trial Judge complained against by the appellant is on page 324A of the record of appear, lines 10-18 as follows:
“In this case, the claimant tendered the survey plan of the land which was admitted in evidence without any objection by the defendants or their counsel and was marked Exhibit A. The purpose of tendering a survey plan of a parcel of land in dispute is to show the boundaries, extent, dimensions, features and location of the land with accuracy and certainty. So once a claimant tenders a survey plan of the land in dispute without objection from
11
the opposite party, he is not required to prove the features, location and extent of the land because by not so objecting, the opposite party has conceded the plan and its contents as representing the land in dispute. See the case of Odibendi V. Okolie (2010) 13 NWLR (PT 1210) 45 held 1.”
But that was not the entirety of what the learned trial Judge said on the issue as his lordship while evaluating the case of the appellants made a further important finding on this issue which was not challenged by the appellant. The said finding is on page 326 of the record of appeal, lines 16- 20 as follows:
“The defendants call the land “Akai Abang” while the claimant says it is called “Edem Eko Etim Ibanga”. But from the survey plans filed by the parties as well as other exhibits and evidence in Court, I am satisfied that the parties are referring to the same land which is in dispute.”
According to Onnoghen J.S.C.:
“It is settled law that evaluation of evidence and the ascription of probative value thereto reside within the province of the Court of trial that saw, heard, and assessed the witnesses and
12
that where a trial Court unquestionably evaluates and justifiably appraises the facts, it is not the business of the Court of Appeal to substitute its own views for the view of the trial Court. However, the Court of Appeal can intervene where there insufficient evidence to sustain the judgment, or where the trial Court fails to make proper use of the opportunity of seeing, hearing and observing the witnesses or where the findings of fact of the trial cannot be regarded as resulting from the evidence or where the trial Court has drawn wrong conclusion from accepted evidence or has taken an erroneous view of the evidence adduced before it or its findings are perverse in the sense that they do not flow from accepted evidence or not supported by evidence before the Court. See EDJEKPO & ORS VS OSIA & ORS (2007) 29 NSCQR 842 at 885.
The case before the learned trial Judge was not one where there was any dispute about the identity of the land in dispute or where the claimant failed to identify and testify about the extent and dimensions of the land he claimed and the findings on the identity of the land in dispute were made upon a proper
13
appraisal of adduced evidence. In the circumstances there is no basis to disturb the findings of the learned trial Judge in this regard.
The remaining complaint here is as regards the establishment of respondent’s root of title.
It is now well settled that there are five ways to establish a claim of title to land. These are traditional evidence, production of title documents with proof of execution, acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time, numerous and positive enough to prove ownership, acts of long possession and enjoyment of land and proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances rendering it probable that the owner of such adjacent land would in addition be the owner of the land in dispute.
See PLATEAU INVESTMENT PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD VS EBHOR (2001) FWLR (PT 64) 374 at 415 and IDUNDUN vs OKUMAGBA (1976) NMLR 100 at 210.
The respondent’s pleadings on his stake to the title of the disputed land are particularly found in paragraphs 8-11 of the Further Amended Statement of Claim as follows:
8. “The plaintiff inherited the land in dispute from his father (late) Chief Anderson
14
Johnson Akpan of Ewet Offot, Uyo. This plaintiff’s late father gave the land inter vivors to the plaintiff in 1975 and issued him with an authority letter as well as the purchase agreements of the land. The plaintiff hereby pleads the said purchase agreement and authority letter and shall rely on them at the trial.
9. The plaintiff’s said late father purchased the land in 1954 at the cost of #40 (forty pounds) from Messrs Esang Akpan Unwa and Okon Akpan Uwa of Ewet Offot (both deceased) who were the original owners.
10. The plaintiff’s father before his handing over the land to plaintiff exercised various acts of possession upon the land including farming, burials etc without any interruptions from anybody including the defendants or their predecessors.
11. The plaintiff has been exercising various acts of possession on the land in dispute since 1975 including farming without any interruptions from anybody whatsoever.”
In response to these averments the appellants pleaded in paragraphs 12 and 13 of their Further Amended Statement of Defence and Counter-claim as follows:
15
“12. The 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th defendants are not in position to admit or deny paragraphs 8 and 9 of the further amended statement of claim as the matters therein are within the peculiar knowledge of the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff will be put to the strictest proof of those averments.
13. The 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th defendants do not admit paragraphs 10 and 11 of the further amended statement of claim and will put the plaintiff to the strictest proof of those averments.”
According to UTHMAN MOHAMMED, J.S.C.:
“When as a result of exchange of pleadings by parties to a case a material fact is affirmed by one of the parties but denied by the other, the question thus raised between the parties is an ‘issue of fact’. We must observe, however, that in order to raise an issue of fact in these circumstances there must be a proper traverse; and a traverse must be made either by a denial or non-admission either expressly or by necessary implication. So that if a defendant refuses to admit a particular allegation in the statement of claim, he must state so specifically; and he does not do this
16
satisfactorily by pleading thus:
“defendant is not in a position to admit or deny (the particular allegation in the statement of claim) and will at the trial put the plaintiff to proof.” As was held in Harris V. Gamble (1878) 7 Ch. D. 877 a plea that “defendant puts plaintiff to proof” amounts to insufficient denial; equally a plea that the “defendant does not admit correctness” (of a particular allegation in the statement of claim) is also an insufficient denial.” See UGOCHUKWU VS UNIPETROL (2002) 9 NSCQR 533 at 539-540.
Thus when the respondent pleaded that
“8. The plaintiff inherited the land in dispute from his father (late) Chief Anderson Johnson Akpan of Ewet Offot, Uyo. This plaintiff’s late father gave the land inter vivors to the plaintiff in 1975 and issued him with an authority letter as well as the purchase agreements of the land.
The plaintiff hereby pleads the said purchase agreement and authority letter and shall rely on them at the trial.
9. The plaintiff’s said late father purchased the land in 1954 at the cost of #40 (forty pounds) from Messrs Esang
17
Akpan Unwa and Okon Akpan Uwa of Ewet Offot (both deceased) who were the original owners.”
And the appellants responded by saying;
“12. The 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th defendants are not in position to admit or deny paragraphs 8 and 9 of the further amended statement of claim as the matters therein are within the peculiar knowledge of the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff will be put to the strictest proof of those averments.”
The appellants had admitted the material facts of the respondent’s root of title not only that the respondent got the land from his father in 1975 but also that his father bought about 21 years earlier in 1954 from the Messrs Esang Unwa and Okon Akpan Uwa of Ewet Offot who were the original owners of the said land.
According to MUKHTAR, J.S.C. as she then was;
“It is settled law that litigation is fought on pleadings of the parties, as it forms the foundation from which it is developed and tackled to the stage of judgment. It is pleadings that form the basis of the plank of a case and the evidence that is adduced in support therefore.”
See NWOKOROBIA Vs
18
UCHECHI & ORS (2009) 38 NSCQR 142 at 161.
The fatality to the appellants’ case here occurred with their pleadings. The respondent followed his pleadings up by tendering the documents of transfer from his late father to himself and from the father’s vendors to the father. He thereby went beyond tracing his root to the father but also established the ownership of his father, the ownership already conceded in the pleadings by the appellants.
On the part of the appellants, they averred in paragraph 9 of their Further Amended statement of Defence and counter-claim as follows:
“9. Still in answer to paragraph 6 of the further amended statement of claim the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th defendants say that the land in dispute is properly delineated on survey plan No. AS/AK/16/97(LD) dated 13th May, 1997 drawn by A.I.U. Ekoriko, Esquire, Licensed Surveyor of Uyo and filed with this further amended statement of defence. The land in dispute is verged RED on the survey plan. The boundaries of the land in dispute are NORTH: The land of Eniong Offot, EAST: The land of Nung Anka Family and some of their tenants,
WEST:
19
The land of Ewet Offot. Ewet Offot has sold some of its land on this side to tenants.
Originally the land verged RED was deforested by Chief Udo Idiong Anka, the forebear of the 3rd defendant. The land was/is called AKAI ABANG because pottery business went on there owing to the abundance of clay.
The 3rd defendant herein states that portions of Akai Abang land had been partitioned among members of Nung Anka Family while some other portions are still communal to Nung Anka Family, The 3rd defendant herein states that among those to whom partition was made included castor Okon Ubit and the 3rd defendant. By this process the Family of Nung Anka or individual members have granted rand to other people. The 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th defendants herein shall rely on features on the survey plan fired with the statement of defence.”
At this stage, a brief recourse to portions of the judgment of the learned trial Judge will be helpful. On page 327 of the record of appeal, lines 9 -31 contain as follows:
“Therefore with the evidence of the claimant and PW2 and Exhibits B, F and F1 those facts were proved and
20
the claimant was able to establish his root of title to the land.
The root of title to the land started in 1954 when the claimant’s late father bought it. The defendants have testified that the land was deforested by Chief Udo Idiong Anka without stating when it was deforested or whether it was from time immemorial. But they have tendered purchase agreements which are Exhibits K, M, O and Q made on 28th January, 1978, 29th June, 1977, 27th September, 1988 and 18th September, 1997 respectively. They also tendered their certificates of occupancy as Exhibits L, P, and R signed on 4th January, 1988, 1st October, 1995 and 31st December, 1991 respectively. It is clear therefore that all the purchase agreements and the certificates of occupancy were made or issued long after 1975 when the land was given to the claimant. Furthermore Exhibits L and Q were made in 1988, the year the defendants instituted against the claimant Suit No.HU/119/88 which turned out to be futile.
Exhibit R was issued after that suit failed.
Exhibit P and Q were issued on 1st October, 1995 and 18th September, 1997 after their Suit No. HU/228/94 had been filed against the
21
claimant. I had already stated the fate of that suit. I have noted particularly that Exhibit Q was made in 1997 after the present suit was instituted by the claimant against the defendants. Those exhibits tendered by the defendants must be considered with great circumspection having regards to their timings in relation to when the root of title of the claimant arose and when suits No HU/119/88 and HU/228/94 were fired by the defendants against the claimant and disposed of and when the present suit was instituted by the claimant against the defendants.”
The learned trial Judge continued with his evaluation of the evidence of the two sides and on page 329 lines 4-8 came to the following conclusion:
“The outcome of weighing the claimant’s evidence including the Exhibits tendered by him against the defendants’ evidence and the Exhibits tendered by them is that the evidence of the claimant is more credible, more conclusive, heavier and more probale than that given by the defendants. Therefore, the balance has tilted in favour of the claimant.”
From the pleadings and adduced evidence before the trial Court, I cannot find any merit in the arguments of
22
learned counsel for the appellants.
According to IGUH, JSC:
In this regard it is long settled that the evaluation of evidence and the ascription of probative value to such evidence are the primary functions of a Court of trial which heard and assessed the witnesses, where a Court of trial unquestionably evaluates the evidence and justifiably appraises the facts, it is not the business of the Court of Appeal to substitute its own views for those of the trial Court. what the Court of Appeal ought to do is to find out whether there is evidence on which the trial Court could have acted. once there is sufficient evidence on record from which the trial court made its findings, the appellate Court cannot interfere.” See AGBEJE VS AGBA AKIN (2002) 9 NSCQR 1 at 18-19.
I therefore resolve this issue against the appellants as well.
Remaining are issues 3 and 4 of the appellants taken along with issue 2 of the respondent. The said issues are:
1. Whether evidence of the plaintiff and his lone witness vis a vis that of the defendant and their witnesses were properly evaluated by the trial Judge before arriving at its decision.
2. Whether the
23
defendants were not entitled to their claim in view of the quality of evidence presented at the trial Court, And
3. Whether the trial Court properly evaluated the evidence adduced by the respective parties before arriving at its decision.
Arguing these issues Mr. Okon submitted that the learned trial Judge failed to evaluate the evidence given by the claimant on a number of issues which he highlighted and invited this Court to do so. He referred to OKWEJIMINOR VS GBAKEJI (2008) ALL FWLR (PT.409) 405 at 436-437, UZOCHUKWU & ORS VS AMAGHALU ERI & ORS (1997) 7 SCNJ 238, FALIOMO VS ONAKANMI (2006) ALL FWLR (PT 298) 1242 at 1261, YARO VS AREWA CONSTRUCTION LTD (2008) ALL FWLR (PT 400) 603 at 639 and IKEGBUNAM vs ONWUBUYA (2007) ALL FWLR (PT 345) 397.
He finally submitted that the appellants made out a sufficient case before the trial Court to entitle them to their counter-claim and referred to the following cases: OBIBENDI VS OKOLIE (2010) 13 NWLR (PT.1210) 45, IDUNDUN VS OKUMAGBA (1976) 9-10 SC 227, NJOKU VS REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY GHOST FATHERS (2007) ALL FWLR (PT 327) at 945.346, EZE Vs AKPAN (2009) ALL FWLR
24
(PT 461) 954 and CHUKWU VS AMADI
(2009) ALL FWLR (PT 472) 1189.
Mr. Ezeibe submitted that evaluation of evidence is primarily that of the trial Court and that the evidence adduced at trial was properly evaluated by the learned trial Judge and that balance of probabilities favours the respondent. He referred to OGUNDEPO VS OLUMESAN (2011) 18 NWLR (PT 1278) 54 at 57, ANYEGWU VS ONUCHE (2009) 3 NWLR (PT 1129) 659 at 662, JEKPE vs ALOKWE (2001) 4 SCNJ 55 at 67 AND WACHUKWU VS OWUNWANNE (2011) 14 NWLR (PT 1266) 1 at 8.
He urged the Court to affirm the judgment of the trial Court once it is confirmed that it arrived at a correct conclusion. He referred to LEBILE Vs REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF CHERUBIM AND SERAPHIM CHURCH (2003) 2 NWLR (PT 804) 399 at 411.
In his reply argument, the learned counsel for the appellant reiterated his position and urged the Court to discountence the submissions of learned counsel for the respondent.
UWAIFO, J.S.C. stated as follows:
“It does not matter that the Court below may not have gone into the available details of circumstances which, put together and considered, must lead to the conclusion that the
25
plaintiff’s claim was properly dismissed. It is in law enough that it reached the right decision as I consider it did, In other words, if the conclusion reached by the Court below is correct, that cannot be affected by the fact that it was arrived at on insufficient or even some wrong reasons: See Ukejianya V Uchendu (1950) 13 WACA 45 at 46: Ayeni V Sowemimo (1982) 5 SC 60 at 74752 Abaye v Ofili (1986) 17 NSCC (Pt.1) 94 at 133.” See LEBILE VS THE REGD TRUSTEES OF C & S CHURCH OF ZION OF NIGERIA UGBONLA & ORS (2003) 13 NSCQR 19 at 32.
However, while considering the earlier issues, I have in arriving at my position thereon inherently decided these issues as well as they all dovetail into the propriety of the evaluation of evidence adduced at the trial by the learned trial Judge.
I have carefully perused the entire record of appeal and with particular emphasis on the evidence adduced at trial before the learned trial Judge.
As stated earlier, the conclusions reached by the learned trial Judge were in my view based on a proper assessment of the evidence adduced before him and I do not find anything perverse therein.
I accordingly
26
resolve these issues against the appellants.
In totality, I hold that this appeal lacks merit and I accordingly dismiss it.
The respondent is entitled to cost which I assess at N50,000.00 against the appellants.
CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, J.C.A.:
read in advance the judgment delivered by my learned brother, J.O.K OYEWOLE, J.C.A. I agree with his reasoning and conclusions while adopting the facts of this case as set down in the lead judgment. There is no merit in this appeal and I also dismiss same. I endorse the order as to costs made by J. O. K. OYEWOLE, J.C.A.
PAUL OBI ELECHI, J.C.A.:
I have had the advantage of reading in draft the Judgment just delivered by Learned brother Joseph Olubunmi Kayode Oyewole, J.C.A.
My Learned brother has exhaustively considered and resolved the pertinent issues that came up for determination in this appeal. I have no hesitation in concurring with the reasoning and conclusion thereon which I adopt as mine.
Consequently, I abide by the conclusion arrived at and the consequential Orders as to costs thereon.
27
Appearances:
MR. A. OKON, ESQ.For Appellant(s)
MR. C.O. EZEIBE, ESQ.For Respondent(s)
Appearances
MR. A. OKON, ESQ.For Appellant
AND
MR. C.O. EZEIBE, ESQ.For Respondent
