MR. BASSEY OKON ELIJAH & ANOR v. ADMINISTRATOR-GENERAL AKWA IBOM STATE & ANOR
(2018)LCN/12391(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Tuesday, the 13th day of March, 2018
CA/C/152/2014
RATIO
ARBITRATION: WHEN BOTH PARTIES SUBMIT TO ARBITRATION
“Yet, it’s a settled principle, that where two parties to a dispute voluntarily submit an issue in controversy between them to an arbitration, once the arbitrators determine the dispute in a decision, it would no longer be admissible to either party to resile from the arbitration panels’ decision so pronounced. See UTONG VS UTONG [2014] ALL FWLR [Pt. 746] 452; BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY, 9TH EDITION @ 119 – 120.” PER IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.C.A.
EVIDENCE: ADMISSION OF INADMISSIBLE DOCUMENT
“Instructively, the law is trite, that the mere admission of an otherwise inadmissible document cannot confer any jurisdictional competence or power on a Court to ascribe probative value thereto. See ETAJATA VS OLOGBO [2007] ALL FWLR [Pt. 386] 584 @ 615 paragraphs B-D [SC]; FADLALLAH VS AREWA ILES LTD. [1997] 202; COMPTOIR CORPORATION [2002] FWLR [Pt. 105] 839; [2002] SCNJ 342; DALEK [NIG] LTD. VS OMPADEC [2007] 7 NWLR [Pt. 1033] 402 @ 441 paragraphs D & F; OKONJI VS NJOKANMA [1999] 12 SCNJ 259 @ 273.” PER IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
STEPHEN JONAH ADAH Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
1. MR. BASSEY OKON ELIJAH
2. MR. OKON ELIJAH OROK Appellant(s)
AND
1. ADMINISTRATOR-GENERAL AKWA IBOM STATE
2. THE PROBATE REGISTRAR, AKWA IBOM STATE Respondent(s)
IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment):
The instant appeal has resulted from the judgment of the Akwa Ibom State High Court, delivered on November 1, 2013 in Suit No: HU/308/2006. By the said decision, the Court below, coram Andrew E. Okon, J; dismissed Appellant’s case for lacking in merits.
BACKGROUND FACTS
The suit was initially instituted in the Court below vide a writ of summons. By the Further Amended Statement of Claim thereof, filed on June 24, 2009, the Appellants claimed against the Respondents the following declaratory and injunctive reliefs:
1) A declaration that the Plaintiffs are entitled to administer the Estate of Late Una Okon Elijah their brother and son who died intestate on the 15th day of November, 1984 by virtue of letters of administration issued to the 1st Plaintiff on the 24th day of February, 1994.
2) An order of Court revoking the letters of administration dated the 4th day of May 2006 obtained by the 1st Defendant through misrepresentation of facts.
3) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st Defendant, his agents, privies or servants from interfering with the management and or control of the house known as No. 30 Esuene Street, Uyo being the bona-fide property of the plaintiffs.
At the trial of the suit, the Appellants called one witness in the person of the 1st Appellant who testified as PW1 and tendered nine Exhibits which were admitted A-J. Contrariwise, the Respondents called two witnesses in the persons of Pastor Edem John Yuang and Iniobong Una Okon, who testified as DW1 and DW2. The Respondent equally tendered Exhibit K.
At the end of the trial, the Court below delivered the vexed judgment to the conclusive effect:
On the totality of evidence before me, the claimants have not proved their case on the balance of probability. It is ordered that their claim be and is hereby dismissed. On the other hand, the Defendants have proved their case on the preponderance of evidence and are entitled to the judgment of the Court. In the final result it is ordered that judgment be and is hereby entered for the Defendants as follows:
1. It is declared that the claimants are not entitled to administer the estate of Late Una Okon Elijah in respect of No. 30 Esuene Street, Uyo.
2. It is ordered that the letters of Administration AKS/LA/397/93 dated 24th February, 1994 issued to 1st claimant in so far as concerned No. 30 Esuene Street, Uyo, be and are hereby revoked.
3. It is again ordered that the 1st Defendant shall continue to administer the estate of the deceased lying and situate at No. 30 Esuene Street, Uyo.
4. It is further ordered that the claimants be and are hereby perpetually restrained by themselves, their agents, privies or servants from interfering with or collecting rents from or controlling the estate of the deceased known as and described as No. 30 Esuene Street, Uyo administered by the 1st Defendant by virtue of letters of administration No AKS/LA/ADG/02/06 dated 4th May, 2006.
As alluded to above, dissatisfied with the said judgment, the Appellants appealed to this Court on January 13, 2014. However, pursuant to the leave granted thereto on 16/2/2015, the Appellants filed an Amended Notice of Appeal on 26/2/2015.
The appeal was deemed duly entered on 9/2/2017. The Appellants’ brief of argument, deemed properly filed on the said date, spans a total of 16 pages. At pages 4 – 5 of the brief, three issues have been raised:
1. Whether the learned Trial Judge was correct when he held that the land described in Exhibit E and the land described in Exhibit H were different estates and therefore Letters of Administration issued to the Administrator-General in respect of No. 30 Esuene Street, Uyo were proper, when the Administrator-General did not first apply to revoke or recall the Letters of Administration earlier granted to the 1st Appellant in respect of the same property (Ground 1 in the Amended Notice of Appeal).
2. Whether the Learned Trial Judge was correct when he relied on the evidence of DW1 and DW2 in proof of the fact that Late Una Okon Elijah was married to one Irene Una Okon and had a child allegedly called Iniobong Una Okon, when he alleged Irene Una Okon was not called as a witness to prove the existence of her marriage to Una Okon Elijah (Ground 2 in the Amended Notice of Appeal).
3. Whether the Learned Trial Judge was correct when he placed reliance on Exhibit K, a Deed of Settlement when the said Deed of Settlement had no probative value in law to bind the Appellants, having not been signed by the Appellants.
(Ground 3 in the Amended Notice of Appeal).
The first issue is canvassed at pages 5 – 8 of the brief, to the effect that the Court below was wrong when it held that the land located and described in Exhibit E and the land described in Exhibit H were different estates.
Further submitted, that the Court below was wrong when it held that the 1st Respondent rightly obtained Letter of Administration to administer the estate of Late Una Okon Elijah.
The Court is urged so resolve the first issue in favour of Appellants.
The second issue is canvassed at pages 4-5 of the brief, to the effect that at the age of 3, the DW2 could not have known whether Late Una Okon Elijah was legally married to her mother. Thus, her evidence in respect of the alleged marriage between Irene and Una Okon Elijah is hearsay evidence, and should be discountenanced by this Court. See Section 38 of the Evidence Act 2011. UTTEH VS. STATE (1992) 2 NWLR (pt. 223) 572; OJO VS GHARORO (2006) 10 NWLR (pt. 187) 173 @ 198-199 H-A; JSC VS OMO (1990) 6 NWLR (pt 157) 407.
The Court is urged to resolve the second issue in favour of the Appellants.
The third issue is argued at pages 12-14 of the brief, to the effect that the Court below should not have relied on Exhibit K, the alleged deed of settlement, in coming to the conclusion that Nung Umoh Ebet Association had decided that the house at No. 30 Esuene Street, Uyo, belonged to DW2, in the absence of the signature of the Appellants, especially the 2nd Appellant [the father of Late Una Okon Elijah]. See ETAJATA VS OLOGBO (2007) 16 NWLR (pt. 1061) 554 @ 587 A-G, et al.
Further submitted, that the issue in contention is not the admissibility of Exhibit K, but the probative value that ought to be attached thereto. See ETAJATA VS OLOGBO (supra); BUHARI VS INEC (2008) NWLR (pt. 1120) 246 @ 414, H.
It was argued, that since Exhibit K has no probative value, the Court below erred in law when it relied on it in reaching the conclusion that Nung Umoh Ebet Association had decided that the house No. 30 Esuene Street, Uyo belonged to the daughter Iniobong Una Okon.
The Court is urged to so hold.
Conclusively, the Court is urged upon to allow the appeal, and grant the Appellants’ claim.
On the other hand, the unpaginated Respondents’ brief, filed on 2/5/2017, spans a total of 17 pages. At page 6 of the said brief, the Respondents deemed it expedient to adopt the Appellants’ three issues.
The first issue is canvassed at pages 6 – 11 of the brief, to the effect that the Court below was right in holding that the land described in Exhibit E and the land described in Exhibit H were different land, therefore, letters of administration issued to the Administrator-General in respect of No.30 Esuene Street, Uyo were proper.
It was submitted, that the Court below carefully considered Exhibits E and H. And that a careful perusal of both Exhibits E and H would indicate that Exhibit E is only a bare land simpliciter, but Exhibit H is a land with a house built on it. The Court is urged to hold that the letters of administration given to the Administrator-General in respect of No. 30 Esuene Street was proper.
It was argued, that the Appellants failed to adduce evidence to prove their allegations. See Sections 135 and 137 (1) of the Evidence Act 2011; KALU VS. UZOR (2006) 8 NWLR (pt. 981) 66; CHUKWUANU VS. UCHENDU (2016) LPELR 41022 (CA), et al.
The Court is urged to so hold.
The second issue is canvassed at pages 11 to 13 of the brief, to the effect that the existence of a valid marriage between Irene and the deceased was irrelevant and never in issue. That it was shown that the deceased had acknowledged the paternity of DW2, Miss Iniobong Una Okon, as his daughter during his lifetime. See Section 42(2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended.
It was argued, that in the instant case, the evidence of the Respondents and their witnesses were credible and not challenged and the Court below rightly relied thereupon to hold that Miss Iniobong Una Okon was the daughter of Late Una Okon Elijah. See ABAH VS. OWEI (2015) ALL FWLR (pt. 780) 1357.
The Court is urged to so hold and dismiss the appeal.
The third issue is postulated upon at pages 13 to 15 of the brief, to the effect that the Court below was right to have placed reliance on Exhibit K.
It was submitted, that the Appellants were fully aware of the existence of Exhibit K. They never denied the existence of Exhibit K, which is the reasoning for not joining issues with the Respondents in paragraph 9 (f) of the Amended Statement of Defence. See UTONG VS. UTONG (2014) ALL FWLR (pt. 746) 452.
The Court is urged to so hold.
Conclusively, the Court is urged to dismiss the appeal, and uphold the decision of the Court below.
By the reply brief thereof, filed on 23/5/2017, the Appellants have conclusively urged upon the Court to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Court below.
Having critically, albeit dispassionately, considered the nature and circumstances surrounding the appeal, the argument contained in the respective briefs vis-a-vis the record of appeal, I am inclined to adopt the three issues of the Appellants for the determination of the appeal, anon.
ISSUES NO. 1
The first issue raises the very vexed question of whether or not the Court below was correct, when it held that the land described in Exhibits E and H were different estates and, therefore, the letters of administration issued to the 1st Respondent in respect of No. 30 Esuene Street, Uyo were proper. The issue is distilled from ground 1 of the notice of appeal.
Instructively, by the Amended Statement of Claim thereof [pages 65 ? 68] of the record], the Appellants have erred, inter alia:
9. The plaintiffs state that after repaying the loan in 1993 and to avoid further encroachment and partitioning, the 1st plaintiff cause the 2nd plaintiff to apply for letters of administration to enable a house be erected on the said land. On the 24th day of February, 1994, ten years after the death of Una Okon Elijah letters of administration No. AK.S/LA.397/93 was issued to the 2nd plaintiff to administer the personal real property of Una Okon Elijah. The said letter of administration is hereby pleaded.
Paragraph 9 of the 1st Appellant’s [PW1’s] written statement on oath is essentially in line with paragraph 9 of the said Further Further Amended Statement of Claim.
The PW1 equally stated on oath that after obtaining the said letter of administration, both himself and the 2nd Appellant pulled their resources together and erected a building known as No. 30 Esuen Street, Uyo and let tenants therein.
In the course of the examination in-chief thereof, the PW1[1st Appellant] adopted his written statement on oath. Whereupon, Inyang, Esq., tendered from the Bar certain documents which were admitted by the Court below, thus:
Court:
The documents are admitted in evidence and marked as follows:
– Certificate of Occupancy No. UY/230/80 dated 27/8/1980
– Exhibit A; Letter dated 20/8/1985 by ACB Ltd.
– Exhibit B; ACB Ltd. Booklet of Letters
– Exhibit C; Efiat Village Council Judgment dated 11/5/1987
– Exhibit D; Letter of Administration dated 24/2/1994
– Exhibit E; Tenancy Agreement dated 1/12/2002
– Exhibit F; Invitation dated 12/5/2006
– Exhibit G; Photocopy of Letter of Administration dated 4/5/2006
– Exhibit H; Letter from Stemiro Chambers, Uyo dated 15/5/2006 with annextures Exhibit J;
[pages 194 – 195 of the Record].
Under cross examination by the Respondents’ counsel, Ebebe, Esq., the PW1 had stated:
On the last adjournment date, I tendered Exhibits in this case. I have seen Exhibit E. The inventory there includes land that is in Efiat Offot and chattels. The house at No. 30 Esuen Street is not included in the inventory because at that time there was no house on the land. It was Christian Fellowship that was on the land.
Contrariwise, by virtue of the Amended Statement of Defence thereof, the 1st Respondent averred, inter alia:
8. Defendant denies paragraphs 9 & 10. In answer, I state that letters of Administration No. AKS/LA/397/93 dated 24th February, 1994 was not issued to the 1st plaintiff for purposes of administration of the deceased estate [house].
(a) That 2nd Plaintiff did not give instruction to the 1st Plaintiff. Plaintiffs did not erect any building known as No. 30 Esuene Street, Uyo, Akwa Ibom State since late Una Okon Elijah had already built a permanent building on 30 Esuene Street, Uyo, as shown on the Certificate of Occupancy issued in favour of late Una Okon Elijah.
On 15/10/2012, the DW1, in the person of Pastor Edem John Enang, adopted the written statement on oath thereof, and identified Exhibit K, the judgment of the Arbitration Panel.
By virtue of the provision of Section 8 of the Administration of Estates Law, CAP 2, Laws of Akwa Ibom State, 2000:
Where administration has been granted in respect of any estate of a deceased person, no person shall have power to bring any action or otherwise act as executor of the deceased person in respect of the estate comprise of in or affected by the grant until the grant has been recalled or revoked.
It is equally the law under the Administrator-General Law, CAP. 4, Laws of Akwa Ibom State, 2000, that:
11(1) Subject to this law, the Administrator-General may where he becomes aware of an estate or assets of an estate, within the State, in the form set out in the schedule:
(a) Stating the particulars of the estate or assets; and
(b) Praying for the grant of probate or of letters of administration as the case may be, of the estate. …
(3) On being satisfied that the estate is unrepresented, the Court shall make an order accordingly and thereupon, the Administrator-General shall forthwith-
(a) Cause an inventory to be made of the estate or
assets, as the case may be; and
(c) File in the court.
In the instant case, parties are ad idem that the deceased person Una Okon Elijah, died intestate on 15/11/84. The 1st Appellant was granted a letter of administration of the deceased person’s estate [Exhibit E] on 24/ 02/1994. However, on 04/05/06, Exhibit E was revoked by the Court and Exhibit H [The second letter of administration] was issued to the 1st Respondent.
The argument of the Appellant, in the main, is that the Court below has erred when it held that the land described in Exhibit E and the land described in Exhibit H were different estates. The Appellants also postulated that the Court below was equally wrong in holding that Exhibit H issued to the 1st Respondent in respect of No. 30 Esuene Street, Uyo was proper.
Indeed, the relevant finding by Court below was captured at pages 215 – 216 of the Record:
There are two letters of Administration in respect of the deceased’s property tendered as Exhibits E and H by the claimants. Exhibit E was issued to the 1st claimant while Exhibit H was issued to the 1st defendant… There is no explanation from the claimants showing that the land at Efiat stated under the inventory as valued at N1000.00 in Exhibit E is the same as No. 30 Esuene Street, Uyo stated under the inventory as valued at N200,000.00 in Exhibit H. In Exhibit E, it is land simpliciter and in Exhibit H it is a house.
My view is that in the absence of evidence explaining them to be one and the same estate, they are different estates and therefore letters of Administration were properly issued to the Administrators-General in respect of No. 30 Esuene Street, Uyo.
Having critically, albeit dispassionately, considered the two exhibits in question, Exhibits E and H [contained at pages 50 and 51 of the Record], I cannot but uphold the finding of the Court below, to the effect that the two exhibits cannot by any stretch of imagination be deemed to refer to same property. And I so hold.
The Appellants alleged that at the time they obtained Exhibit E in 1994, the land was bare. They allegedly pulled their resources together to erect the house thereon. They equally claimed that the land was given to the deceased person simply to survey and use the certificate of occupancy to obtain a loan for his business.
Ironically, however, the Appellants woefully failed to prove all these allegations. Thus, having failed to discharge the burden of proof incumbent thereupon, the Court below was absolutely correct in dismissing their case. Indeed, the law is fundamentally trite, that he who asserts must prove his assertion. See SECTIONS 135 & 137(1) of the EVIDENCE ACT, 2011; KALU VS UZOR [2006] 8 NWLR [Pt. 981] 66; CHUKWUANU VS UCHENDU [2016] LPELR 41022 [CA].
In the circumstance, the first issue is hereby resolved against the Appellants.
ISSUE NO. 2
The second issue raises the question of whether the Court below was right when it relied upon the evidence of DW1 and DW2 in proof of the fact that late Una Okon Elijah was married to one Irene Una Okon and had a child allegedly called Iniobong Una Okon, when the said Irene Una Okon was not called as a witness to prove the existence of such marriage. The second issue has been distilled from ground 2 of the notice of appeal.
In the main, the argument of the Appellants on the second issue is that since the Respondents failed to call the said Irene [DW2’s mother] to testify regarding the existence of her marriage to the late Una Okon Elijah, the Court below was wrong in holding that the deceased person was legally married to the said Irene.
In my considered view, the Respondents’ failure to call Irene Okon to testify has not in any way affected the credibility of the testimony of the DW1, Pastor Edem John Enang. The DW1 testified on oath that the late Una Okon Elijah was indeed the father of Iniobong Una Okon the DW2. Having duly adopted his statement on oath, the DW1 testified under cross examination by Inyang, Esq.:
I am 67 years now… Between me and Una Okon Elijah, I am the older. He was younger than me. The mother of Iniobong Una Okon Elijah is from Itiam Etoi. Before Una Okon Elijah died, he introduced someone as his wife to the family and the daughter as his daughter.
See pages 199 – 200 of the record.
On its part, the Court below came to the conclusive finding on the issue:
The evidence of DW1 has profoundly corroborated the evidence of DW2 that the deceased was the father DW2. I believe the evidence of the defendants that the deceased was the father of DW2 and in my view she ought not to have been excluded from the estate of her father.
See page 214, lines 19 – 22 of the Record.
I cannot agree more with the above conclusive finding of the Court, which said finding is cogent and duly supported by the pleadings and evidence on record.
Arguably, the question of the existence of valid marriage between the said Irene Una Okon and the deceased person is totally irrelevant in view of the circumstances surrounding the case and the compelling evidence on record. Indeed, it?s so obvious by the pleadings and evidence on record that the deceased had duly acknowledged the paternity of the DW2 prior to his fateful demise. Thus, the DW2, Miss Iniobong Una Okon, having been so acknowledged by the deceased person as his own biological daughter, the DW2, is absolutely entitled to inherit the estate of her deceased father without any discrimination whatsoever.
Invariably, this Court and indeed any Court of law, is imbued with a fundamental constitutional duty and obligation to ensure that the Constitutional rights of citizens are duly protected, and not trampled upon, lost or denied by any authority or person no matter powerful or eminent.
Undoubtedly, the DW2’s right to inherit the estate of her late biological father has cherishingly been guaranteed by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended:
42 (2):
No citizen of Nigeria shall be subjected to any disability or deprivation merely by reason of the circumstances of his birth.
In the circumstance, the second issue is hereby resolved against the Appellants.
ISSUE NO. 3
The third issue raises the question of whether or not the Court below was right when it placed reliance on Exhibit K, a Deed of Settlement in coming to the conclusion that Nung Umoh Ebet Association had decided that the house at No. 30, Esuene Street, Uyo, built by the deceased person, belonged to the DW2 in the absence of Appellants’ signature, especially that of the 2nd Appellant, the father of the late Una Okon Elijah.
Instructively, the law is trite, that the mere admission of an otherwise inadmissible document cannot confer any jurisdictional competence or power on a Court to ascribe probative value thereto. See ETAJATA VS OLOGBO [2007] ALL FWLR [Pt. 386] 584 @ 615 paragraphs B-D [SC]; FADLALLAH VS AREWA ILES LTD. [1997] 202; COMPTOIR CORPORATION [2002] FWLR [Pt. 105] 839; [2002] SCNJ 342; DALEK [NIG] LTD. VS OMPADEC [2007] 7 NWLR [Pt. 1033] 402 @ 441 paragraphs D & F; OKONJI VS NJOKANMA [1999] 12 SCNJ 259 @ 273.
I have deemed it expedient to reiterate the trite doctrine, that the question of attaching weight becomes relevant after the document has been admitted. Thus, in the
19
course of writing the decision [judgment or ruling, as the case may be], it is incumbent upon the trial judge to critically, albeit dispassionately, evaluate the evidence vis-a-vis document admitted in the course of the trial. As aptly held by the Supreme Court:
While logic is the determinant of admissibility and relevancy, weight is a matter of law with taint of facts.
See ABUBAKAR VS CHUKS [2007] 18 NWLR [Pt. 1066] 386 @ 403 – 404 paragraphs F & A per Niki Tobi, JSC.
It is obvious, from the pleadings and evidence on record, that the Appellants were fully aware of the existence of Exhibit K. Ironically, however, they chose not to deny the existence of the said Exhibit K, thus did not join issue with the Respondents upon their averments in paragraph 9(f) of the Respondents’ Amended Statement of Defence:
9. Defendant denies paragraph 11 and further answers as follows:
(f) That on the 19/11/95 the Executive meeting of Nung Umoh Ebet Association was held at Etuk’s compound at Effiat Offot, Uyo. The meeting decided inter alia that:
(i) The house at No. 30 Esuene Street, Uyo, built by late Una Okon Elijah belongs to Iniobong Una Okon the daughter of late Una Okon Elijah.
(ii) That one room in the said house be given to the 2nd plaintiff and another one room be given to the mother of Una Okon Elijah Orok to be occupied on a temporary bases and the property to revert to Iniobong Una Okon at the demise of both occupants.
(iii) That all the rooms occupied by the 1st plaintiff belong to Iniobong Una Okon [daughter of the late Una Okon Elijah].
(iv) That the said house shall finally become the property of Iniobong Una Okon, [the minute of the meeting of 19/11/06 is hereby pleaded and shall relied upon on trial. Also pleaded are a copy of Resolution taken at the end of Nung Uko Family meeting held on 17th July, 2006 and copies of Deeds of Settlement made by ‘Nung Uko’ and the dated 30/1/2005 and 8/1/2006.
It is equally obvious from the above paragraph 9(f) of the Amended Statement of Defence, that the Respondents averred that the family went into the matter and decided that the Appellants and the deceased persons’ mother would stay in rooms occupied by them for life and upon their demise, [the rooms] would revert to and remain the property of the deceased person’s daughter, DW2.
However, the Appellants, for reasons best known thereto, deemed it expedient not to controvert or deny these facts. Yet, it’s a settled principle, that where two parties to a dispute voluntarily submit an issue in controversy between them to an arbitration, once the arbitrators determine the dispute in a decision, it would no longer be admissible to either party to resile from the arbitration panels’ decision so pronounced. See UTONG VS UTONG [2014] ALL FWLR [Pt. 746] 452; BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY, 9TH EDITION @ 119 – 120.
Thus, not unexpectedly, against the backdrop of the foregoing postulation, the Court below aptly evaluated the evidence on record and found at page 215 of the Record:
Exhibit K is a Deed of Settlement made on the 8th of January, 2016 before the suit was instituted. In their Amended Statement of Claim, the Appellants did not join issues with the Respondents on their averments that the family went into the matter and decided that the claimants and the deceased mother [sic] would stay in rooms occupied by them for life and on their death would revert to and remain the property of the deceased daughter DW1.
Indeed, it is trite law, that where parties fail to deny the existence of a document, as in the instant case, the fact that they did not sign same cannot be a ground for them not to be bound by it, barring any statutory provision. See ABEJE VS APEKE [2014] ALL FWLR [Pt. 715} 377; OPARAJI VS OHANU [1999] 6 SCNJ 27; [1999] 9 NWLR [Pt. 618] 1290; [2001] FWLR [Pt. 43] 385.
In the circumstance, the third issue ought to be, and it is equally resolved against the Appellants.
Hence, having resolved the three issues against the Appellants the appeal resultantly fails, and it is hereby dismissed by me.
Whereupon, the judgment of the Akwa Ibom State High Court, holden at Uyo Judicial Division, delivered by the Hon. Justice Andrew E. Okon, on November 1, 2013 in suit No. HU/308/2006, is hereby affirmed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, J.C.A.: I had the opportunity of reading in draft the judgment delivered by my learned brother, I.M.M SAULAWA, JCA.
I adopt the facts of this appeal as set down in the lead judgment.
I agree with the reasoning and conclusion which I adopt as mine.
I also agree that this appeal is bereft of merit and is hereby dismissed.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Uyo Judicial Division of the Akwa Ibom State High Court, delivered on the 1/11/2013 by Andrew E. Okon, J, in suit No. HU/308/2006 is affirmed. I also make no order as to costs.
STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.C.A.: I read the draft of the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa, JCA.
His Lordship has effectively resolved all the three issues and I agree with the reasoning and conclusion thereat.
I too, do dismiss the appeal and I abide by the consequential order as made in the lead judgment inclusive of the order as to costs.
Appearances:
I.S. IBE-BASSEY, ESQ.For Appellant(s)
MRS. ANGELA MICK AKPABIO WITH HER, MRS. ARIT H. ISANGEDIHIFor Respondent(s)
