ISAH HASSAN v. TUNDE THOMPSON (2019)

ISAH HASSAN v. TUNDE THOMPSON

(2019)LCN/12973(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Friday, the 29th day of March, 2019

CA/S/35/2018

RATIO

LAND LAW: UNREGISTERED REGISTRABLE INSTRUMENTS CANNOT BE PLEADED

It also considered its previous decisions in OGBIMI vs. NIGER CONSTRUCTION LIMITED (2006) LPELR-2279 (SC); OJUGBELE vs. OLASOJI (1982) 4 SC (REPRINT) 20; AKINTOLA & ANOR vs. SOLANO (1986) LPELR-360 (SC); EDOKPOLO & CO. LTD vs. OHENHEN (1994) LPELR-1016 (SC), which had earlier affirmed the provision of the Land Instruments Law and held that an unregistered registrable instrument cannot be pleaded, let alone admissible in evidence.PER FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO, J.C.A.

JUSTICES

AHMAD OLAREWAJU BELGORE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

AMINA AUDI WAMBAI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

ISAH HASSAN Appellant(s)

AND

TUNDE THOMPSON Respondent(s)

FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment): This Appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Sokoto State sitting at Sokoto wherein the Court Coram: D.B. SAMBO, J in suit no: SS/1/2014 granted judgment in favour of the Respondent over title to a plot of land situate at Bado Area Sokoto against the Appellant who was defendant at the Court below while the Respondent was Plaintiff. At paragraph 24 of the Plaintiffs statement of Claim filed on the 2-1-2014, the Plaintiff claimed against the defendant as follows:
WHEREOF the Plaintiff claims against the defendant as follows;
a. A DECLARATION that by virtue of the sales agreement between Mohammed Bala and the Plaintiff dated 27th June, 2006 the Plaintiff is the bone fide purchaser for value of the developed landed property situate at Badon Rafi Area Sokoto bounded from the North by the House of Umar Mesin, South by Road, East by the House of Bashiru Muhammad and West by the House of Abubakar Aliyu.
b. A DECLARATION that the Defendant not being the bonafide owner of the developed landed property situate at situate at Badon Rafi Area Sokoto bounded

from the North by the House of Umar Mesin, South by Road, East by the House of Bashiru Muhammad and West by the House of Abubakar Aliyu, the defendant has nothing to purchase, transfer and or sell to any one at all.
c. AN ORDER OF COURT declaring the purported sale and or sales agreement made by the Defendant or any other document purporting to transfer title on the defendant of the Plaintiff developed landed property situate at Badon Rafi Area Sokoto bounded from the North by the House of Umar Mesin, South by Road, East by the House of Bashiru Muhammad and West by the House of Abubakar Aliyu.
d. AN ORDER OF COURT ejecting the Defendant from the developed landed property situate at Badon Rafi Area of Sokoto bounded from the North by the House of Umar Mesin, South by Road, East by the House of Bashiru Muhammad and West by the House of Abubakar Aliyu.
e.The sums of N2,000,000.00 (Two-Million) Naira only against the Defendant for the use of the Plaintiff?s developed landed property situate at Badon Rafi Area of Sokoto bounded from the North by the House of Umar Mesin, South by Road, East by the House of Bashiru Muhammad and West by the House of

Abubakar Aliyu without the knowledge or consent of the Plaintiff.
f.The sums of N2,000,000.00 (Two-Million) Naira only as damages for trespass against the 2nd Defendant
g. The sums of N2,000,000.00 (Two-Million) Naira only for detinue as it relates to the refusal of the Defendant to deliver vacant possession of the Plaintiff?s developed landed property situate at Badon Rafi Area of Sokoto bounded from the North by the House of Umar Mesin, South by Road, East by the House of Bashiru Muhammad and West by the House of Abubakar Aliyu.
h.GENERAL DAMAGES of N2,000,000.00 (Two Million) Naira Only for the inconvenience, mental agony and stress occasioned from the acts of the Defendant.
i. AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the Defendant either by himself or through his privies, agents, servants howsoever called or named from disturbing the peaceful enjoyment of the Plaintiff?s developed landed property situate at Badon Rafi Area of Sokoto bounded from the North by the House of Umar Mesin, South by Road, East by the House of Bashiru Muhammad and West by the House of Abubakar Aliyu.
j. Cost of this action.

Pleadings were ordered and filed along with their front-loaded documents. At the trial, the Respondent as Plaintiff testified for himself as the PW2 and called two other witnesses and tendered a number of exhibits. The Appellant, who was Defendant, also led evidence by calling three witnesses and tendered exhibits. At the close of hearing, parties filed and exchanged written addresses which they adopted. On the 27-5-2015, the Court below delivered a well-considered judgment in favour of the Respondent.

Dissatisfied with this Judgment, the Appellant who was Defendant has Appealed to this Court vide a Notice of Appeal filed on the 22-7-2015. On the 17-10-2018, by leave of this Court, the Appellant filed an Amended Notice of Appeal, which was deemed filed on the 6-11-2018 and containing two (2) Grounds which are reproduced here as follows;
GROUNDS OF APPEAL;
1. The decision is against the weight of evidence.
2. The Trial Court erred in law when in entering judgment in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellant it failed to properly evaluate evidence tendered before it and this occasioned miscarriage of justice.

PARTICULARS;
1. Whereas at the trial Court witness testified and series of documentary evidence were tendered.
2. Whereas there is contradictions in the evidence of PW1 and PW2 on the fact that Respondent was never took possession of the house even after the purported purchase
3. Whereas failed to properly evaluate the evidence presented before it.
4. Whereas the trial Court only restated the evidence present before it.

ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION;
The Appellant nominated only an issue for the determination of this Appeal thus;
Whether the trial Court below properly evaluated evidence before entering judgment in favour of the Respondent? (Grounds one and two)

On the part of the Respondent, the lone issue nominated for the determination of this Appeal by the Appellant was adopted by the Respondent and it was on the bases of this sole issue that learned Counsel for the parties addressed Court in extenso and each urging the Court to resolve this Appeal in favour of his side. The Appellant?s brief of Argument filed on the 17-10-2018 and deemed properly filed on the 6-11-2018, was settled by A. Y. ABUBAKAR ESQ., while the Respondent?s brief of

Argument was filed on the 5-11-2018 and deemed filed on the 6-11-2018 was settled by IBRAHIM ABDULLAHI ESQ.,. At the hearing of the Appeal on the 21-2-2019 learned Counsel adopted their briefs of Argument on behalf of the parties.

SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL;
APPELLANT:
SOLE ISSUE;
Whether the trial Court below properly evaluated evidence before entering judgment in favour of the Respondent? (Grounds one and two)
In arguing this issue, learned Appellant?s Counsel referred this Court to Sections 131(1 & 2) and 132 of the Evidence Act, 2011 on the trite position of law which prescribes that in civil matters the burden of proof is cast on he who asserts the existence of a state of events and how he must prove in affirmative that which he asserts on a balance of probability or through a preponderance of evidence. Counsel cited the case of B.E.G.H. LTD vs. U.H.S. & I (2011) 7 NWLR (PT. 1246) 246 AT 255 on the issue.

According to Counsel the case of the Respondent as Plaintiff before the Lower Court as far as the writ of summon was concerned, was that he bought a house subject of this appeal from one Bala Mohammed in 2006,

which he claimed to be in occupation of since the time he bought it, until sometime in 2013, when he discovered that the Appellant was in possession of the land.

Against this position, Counsel contended that the claim of the Respondent was basically one for a declaration of title to land and that the duty on the Respondent to succeed on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the adverse party cannot be ruled out. He said that considering the nature of reliefs claimed by the Plaintiff, which are declaratory in nature, the plaintiff is to succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of his adversary. Counsel cited the case of UKAEGBU vs. NWOLOLO (2009) 3 NWLR (PT. 1127) 194 At 203 on the issue.

As far as Counsel was concerned, from the evidence presented by the Respondent it is clear that there is so much to be desired in successfully proving his title as claimed, which the lower Court did not consider before proceeding to make pronouncements in favour of the Respondent. He said that the trial Court in its judgment so much relied on exhibit P1 and concluded that Respondent is entitled to his claim.

The argument of Counsel with regards to the said Exhibit as a document evidencing title of the Respondent is that the said Exhibit is inadmissible in evidence for not being registered as required under Section 15 of the Land Registration Law Cap 76 Laws of Sokoto State 1990. In his further argument on the issue, Counsel said that Exhibit P1 by the definition of the instrument given under Section 2 of the piece of legislation qualifies for an instrument affecting land, which must be registered for it to be admissible before any Court of law. Counsel cited the case of AKINDURO vs. ALAYA (2007) LPELR- 344 SC pages 17-18 on the issue.

It was also contended by Counsel that the Law stands clear that an unregistered document is inadmissible in law, even when such a document is admitted in evidence in error, it ought to be expunged. He again contended that the situation does not change even where such a document is admitted where there was no objection from the other party. Counsel cited the case ofIBWA vs. IMANO (2001) 17 WRN PAGE 1 AT PAGE 7 P.21 PARA 5-10 on the issue.

Against the backdrop of this position Counsel urged this Court to expunge the said Exhibit P1 and all the

facts pleaded in line with the content of that document. Furthermore, Counsel contended that from the evidence led before the lower Court, it is clear that the Respondent had never been in possession/occupation of the property in dispute as facts abound that at the time the Respondent’s father sold the house to Sani Adamu, the father was in active occupation, and equally the same situation remained in all the people the house had passed through before it reached the Appellant; that the Plaintiff never contested their ownership or occupation of the house; that it was only in 2013 when he instituted this suit. Counsel referred this Court to the evidence of DW1, DW2 and DW3 at pages 22 to 34 of the record.

Counsel also contended that all these were not challenged by the Respondent and therefore, they are reliable and that the trial Court ought to have considered their probative value. In support of this proposition, Counsel cited the case of ADELEKE vs. IYANDA (2001) 13 NWLR (PT.729) 1 at 22-23 PARAS A-C.

Arising from the foregoing, Counsel contended that the trial Court failed in its duty to properly appraise and evaluate the evidence placed before it

by the Appellant and that this led to a miscarriage of justice on the part of the Appellant. He added that having left the Appellant in possession wherein developments were made on the land, it is clear that he acquiesced and slept over his right and therefore caught by the operation of the estoppel. Therefore, he said that the Respondent cannot be heard to challenge the said sale made by his father. He urged this Court to resolve this sole issue in favour of the Appellant and against the Respondent.

RESPONDENT;
In arguing the sole issue Counsel for the Respondent began by conceding that in all civil cases, the law has now become trite that civil cases are decided on the preponderance of evidence and balance of probability. In other words, where a given allegation whether affirmative or negative forms an essential part of a party’s case, the proof of such allegation rests on him. Counsel cited the cases of ARUM vs. NWOBODO (2004) 9 NWLR (PT. 878) 411; OLALEYE vs. TRUSTEES OF ECWA (2011) 2 NWLR (PT 1230) 1; ACB PLC vs. HASTON (NIG.) LTD (1997) 8 NWLR (PT.515) 110; IMANA vs. ROBINSON (1979) 3-4SC 1 and ELIAS vs. OMO-BARE (1982) 5 SC 25.

The contention of Counsel straight away on the issue of improper evaluation of evidence on the part of the Court below is that Evaluation of evidence is primarily the exclusive preserve of the trial Court except in case of documentary evidence in which the trial Court and the Appellate have equal right to evaluate evidence. Counsel cited the case of IWUOHA vs. NIPOST (2003) 4 SC (PT: 11) 37; OKOLO vs. UZOKA (1978) 4 SC 77 at 86; ABUSOMWAN vs. MERCANTILE BANK (NIG) LTD (No.2) (1987) 3 WLR (PT: 60) 20 in support of this issue.

According to Counsel, the duty of the Court below in ascertaining – the truth of a matter in given circumstances is all but easy and the best of logic may be as availing to one of the parties as it is to the other and where therefore, documentary evidence exists, it is the duty of the Court below as in the present appeal to test the probability of the case of either of the parties by reference to relevant documents, which represent evidence of some more or less permanent or perhaps unassailable character. However, he said that with respect to character and demeanor of witnesses, the Court below that heard the witnesses, and saw them in

the witness box, is in a better position to weigh their evidence than the Appellate Court because these are material elements in the consideration of the truthfulness of their statements and respective claims. Where such is the case, he contended that the Appellate Court should be very slow to interfere.

It is further submitted by Counsel for the Respondent that the duty of the Court below was to examine the pleadings along with the oral and documentary exhibits in order to make findings of fact as to whether the Respondent proved his claims on the balance of probability. Counsel cited the case of BARAU vs. BOARD OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE (1982) 2 NCR 1 in support.

Against the background of this position, Counsel submitted that at pages 59 – 71 of the records, the Court below made copious references to parties? pleadings, the evidence adduced and as well as the documentary evidences before coming to the conclusion that it believed the evidence of the Respondent as well as Exhibit P1 tendered by the Respondent and then proceeded to find in favour of the Respondent. He said that the above analysis of the Court below at the aforesaid pages shows

that the trial judge was mentally alert as to his responsibilities when it comes to evaluation of evidence and this, he said that the Court below this almost perfectly.

To this end, Counsel drew attention to page 59 lines 9-14 of the records, where the Court below stated thus:
“The above position as stated by learned Plaintiff Counsel is borne out of pleaded facts by both parties. In the Plaintiffs statement of claim in paragraphs 4 – 12 thereof, the facts are obvious. The Defendant under paragraph 3 (d) of the statement of Defence appears to say the same thing. It will serve no purpose if relevant paragraph from parties? pleadings are brought out

According to Counsel once again, before the Court below analyzed the evidence adduced before it vis–vis pleaded facts, the Court meticulously held at page 60 lines 15 – 21 and page 61 lines 1 -2 of the records thus:
From the quoted paragraphs above, while the plaintiff has asserted he purchased the landed property, the defendant herein is saying the father of the plaintiff Mr. Herman Thompson purchased same property from same Bala Mohammed. Given the

state of pleadings as have earlier on stated, both Plaintiff and the defendant apparently would seem to have made their respective source of purchase to one source. To resolve the issue in controversy; recourse must be had to the evidence adduced by the witnesses from both side…?

Counsel also reproduced the review of the Court shortly before it arrived at its conclusion that the purchase of the property by the Respondent came first before that of the Appellant, at page 66 lines 19 – 22 and page 67 lines 1- 2 of the records where the Court stated thus:
From the foregoing, the evidence adduced by Plaintiff and witnesses point conclusively to the fact that Plaintiff purchased his developed land since on the 27/6/2006 and this empirical evidence has and was never dislodged under cross examination whatever. The law is trite that unchallenged evidence must be accepted by the Court…

Attention of this Court is further drawn to page 68 lines; 3 – 22 of the records, where the Court below further evaluated the evidence of DW2, DW3 and DW4 and the patent contradiction on the basis of their parole evidence vis–vis

the documentary evidence tendered by the Appellant brilliantly stated thus:
?… Although the Defendant in this case has been (sic) to trace his route of purchase from Alh. Saidu Kangiwa to Alh Sani. Adamu (DW2) to Mr. Herman Thompson and as pleaded that Mr. Herman Thompson purchased same property from Mohammed Bala with no document to support. The last purchase, all put together cannot validate any sale at all from the Defendant down to the last person because of the existence of Exhibit P1. The burden therefore shifted to the defendant to prove otherwise. Has the Defendant then before me been able to do so. Certainly there had been attempt to do so as rightly pointed out by the Learned Plaintiff but to no avail. The defendant in evidence testified that Mr. Herman Thompson did not have the sale document thus he resoughted (sic) to Police in the Exhibits D3 & D4 respectively. Apart from the above, there is conflict in the case of the Defendant as to when the property was sold. Was it sold out by DW2 on the 1/12/2010 or on the 1/6/2010 There is also conflict in the evidence of Defendant witnesses as to who signed for the family of Mr. Herman

Thompson. Was it one Mr. Paul who signed or the sister of the plaintiff? See the evidence of DW1 and DW2 as well as DW2 and DW3…

Counsel further drew attention to the fact that at page 70 lines 5 – 7 of the records, the Court below concluded by saying that:
.. In the case at hand, the Plaintiff before me has been able to prove his case on the preponderance of evidence and not on the weakness of the defence…

Against the backdrop of the foregoing, Counsel submitted that the Court below having carried out a proper evaluation of evidence as enjoined on it by law, this Court cannot interfere with same. He cited the case of AKINLOYE vs. EYIYOLA (1968) NMLR AT 95 and contended that in the instant appeal there is nothing to show that there was wrong evaluation of evidence and that having regard the Respondent?s argument borne out from the records of appeal as it relates to the evidence of parties and documentary evidence, that none of the factors that can lead to a re-evaluation of evidence by an Appellant Court has been established by the Appellant.

?In addition to this, Counsel submitted that the Appellant has

not shown that the findings of facts by the learned trial Judge were either perverse or unsound to warrant the intervention of the Appellate Court. See the case of BALOGUN vs. AKANJI (1988) 2 SCNJ 104 AT 122 and ISHOLA vs. OKUOJA (1982) 7 SC 314 AT 350. Our humble argument is that it is within the province of the learned trial Judge to evaluate the evidence of the parties and their witnesses and to believe either the Appellant or the Respondent.

The Court?s attention was also drawn to the novel argument of the Appellant, which relates to the question of the inadmissibility of Exhibit P1 and that it was wrong for the Court to use same. According to Counsel the question of the inadmissibility of Exhibit P1 was never an issue at the Court below nor did the Court below make any pronouncements on same and therefore not surprising that the Appellant never raised it as a separate ground of appeal vide his amended notice of appeal. Counsel argued that the issue was not canvassed at the Court below but smuggled in, in the cause of argument in the Appellant’s brief.

The submission of Counsel is that litigation is not a hide and

seek game and that an Appeal ordinarily presupposes the existence of a decision ruled against, and that in the absence of such a decision on a point, there cannot possibly be an Appeal against what has not been decided upon against a party. He said that since there is no decision of the Court below relating to the issue of the inadmissibility of Exhibit P1, then the Appellate Court lacks the vires to consider same in this Appeal. See the case of ONYEMAIZU vs. OJIAKO (2010) 4 NWLR (PT. 1185) PG. 504 AT 526 PARA H – E on the issue. See also U.B.A vs. AGBOOLA (2011) 11 NWLR (PT. 1258) 375 AT 400 PARAS F – G. Counsel urged this Court to resolve this sole issue in favour of the Respondent and to dismiss the Appeal.

RESOLUTION OF APPEAL
It may be important to begin by giving a factual background to this Appeal to make for a better grasp of the issues at stake. On the 27th of June, 2006 the Respondent purchased a developed landed property consisting of six (6) bedrooms and a sitting room from one Mohammed Bala of the then Federal Airport Authority, Sokoto at the cost of 1,000,000.00 (One Million) Naira only. At the point of purchase, the said Mohammed Bala was still in

occupation of the said property. A month after the purchase, Mohammed Bala was said to have vacated the property and handed over the keys of the house to the Respondent.

The property, unfortunately was subsequently gutted by fire, and the Respondent could not move into the property. While the Respondent was yet to effect repairs of the said property, to his surprise and chagrin he discovered on a routine visit to the property in the Month of December, 2013 that the property was being renovated on the instructions of the Appellant and this prompted the Respondent to lodge a complaint before men of the Nigeria Police within jurisdiction. Upon the investigations by the Police, they found that the Appellant was laying an adverse claim to the same property. There and then, the Police admonished parties to seek legal redress in a Court of law and the reaction of the Respondent is the suit filed against the Appellant before the Court below vides Suit No: SS/1/2014. Issues were subsequently joined between the parties and the matter went to trial.

The sole issue nominated for the determination of this Appeal by the Appellant sought to query the lower

Court?s evaluation of the evidence adduced by the parties, which the Appellant has said was not properly carried out before the Court entered judgment in favour of the Respondent. As far as the Appellant was concerned, from the evidence presented by the Respondent in the course of trial, it is clear that there is so much to be desired in successfully proving Respondent?s title as claimed, which the Court below did not consider before proceeding to make pronouncements in favour of the Respondent. It was at this stage that Appellant?s Counsel disagreed with the lower Court?s reliance on Exhibit P1, which he said that as document evidencing title of the Respondent, is clearly inadmissible in evidence for not being registered as required under Section of 15 of the Land Registration Law Cap 76 Laws of Sokoto State 1990. In his arguments, Counsel said that Exhibit P1 by the definition of the instrument given under Section 2 of the piece of legislation qualifies for an instrument affecting land, which must be registered for it to be admissible before any Court of law. Counsel cited the case of AKINDURO vs. ALAYA (Supra) and urged this Court to jettison the said exhibit.

While this Court would at this stage state that, having gone through the printed records of Court and hardly finds a plausible reason to fault the lower Court?s evaluation of the evidence adduced by the parties, the Court also finds the need to at once set the records straight with regards to the Appellant?s submissions concerning the juridical import of Exhibit P1, which Counsel had said was wrongly admitted in evidence due to its non-registered status as an instrument meant to evidence title to land under Section 15 of the Land Registration Law Cap 76 Laws of Sokoto State of Nigeria, 1990.
It would be recalled that by a unanimous decision delivered by a full panel of the apex Court on the 15th day of December, 2017 the Court in MOSES BENJAMIN & ORS vs. KALIO & KALIO (2018) 15 NWLR (PT. 1641) jettisoned the requirement of registration as a pre-condition for the admissibility of land documents in evidence. It held that as far as they are properly pleaded, land documents are admissible as proof of title. In the Court?s lead judgment delivered by the noble Lord EKO, JSC the Court had cause

to review the provisions of Section 20 of the Rivers State Land Instruments Law, Sections 4(3), and 5, and Item 23 of the 1999 Constitution. It also considered its previous decisions in OGBIMI vs. NIGER CONSTRUCTION LIMITED (2006) LPELR-2279 (SC); OJUGBELE vs. OLASOJI (1982) 4 SC (REPRINT) 20; AKINTOLA & ANOR vs. SOLANO (1986) LPELR-360 (SC); EDOKPOLO & CO. LTD vs. OHENHEN (1994) LPELR-1016 (SC), which had earlier affirmed the provision of the Land Instruments Law and held that an unregistered registrable instrument cannot be pleaded, let alone admissible in evidence.
The Court came to the conclusion that in view of the inclusion of Evidence in the Exclusive Legislative List, Section 20 of the State law is an act of Legislative Trespass into the Exclusive Legislative terrain. According to my noble Lords, a document that is pleaded and admissible under the Evidence Act cannot be rendered un-pleaded and inadmissible by the State law. Consequently, that unregistered land documents are admissible even as proof of title.
Against the backdrop of this position, objections henceforth, based on non-registration of registrable instruments can no

longer be entertained in the trial of matters where the subject of dispute has to do with landed property. The implication here is that decisions of the lower Courts, which run contrary to the pronouncement of the Supreme Court on the issue will be overturned on appeal.

Apart, from this, it is rather surprising that the Appellant has brought up on Appeal the issues of admissibility or non-admissibility of Exhibit P1, which is an issue the Appellant has just seen fit to introduce for the very first time on Appeal. The relevant question that should, perhaps be addressed at this stage is: why on earth did the Appellant not take advantage of the opportunity it had when leave was granted to have his Notice of Appeal Amended to insert a Ground of Appeal in its Grounds on the issue of the admissibility of Exhibit P1? As it could be recalled at this stage, the question of the inadmissibility of Exhibit P1 was neither an issue at the Court below nor did the Court below make any pronouncements on same. The position is that every Appellate Practitioner ought to be aware of the protocol, which abhors the practice of raising of fresh issues on Appeal without the leave of Court

having been sought and obtained. There are authorities galore on this proposition of the law.

Coming back to the question of improper evaluation of evidence, it is always the primary duty of the Court below to examine the pleadings along with the oral and documentary exhibits in a matter in order to make findings of fact as to whether the one or either of the parties succeeded in proving his claims on the balance of probability. In the instant Appeal in order to make assurance doubly sure on the quality of evaluation of the evidence done by the learned trial judge at the Court below, this Court could not help but examine pages 59 to 71 of the printed records where the Court below took its time to make copious references to parties? pleadings, the evidence adduced and as well as the documentary Exhibits tendered before the Court before coming to the conclusion that it believed the evidence of the Respondent. A careful perusal of the Courts analysis at pages 59 lines 9 to 14; 60 lines 15 to 21; 61 lines 1 to 2; 66 lines 19 to 22; 67 lines 1 to 2 where the Court had this to say;
From the foregoing, the evidence adduced by Plaintiff

and witnesses point conclusively to the fact that Plaintiff purchased his developed land since on the 27/6/2006 and this empirical evidence has and was never dislodged under cross-examination whatever. The law is trite that unchallenged evidence must be accepted by the Court?.

Excerpts of the lower Courts evaluation which are clearly germane to the Court?s decision in giving judgment to the Respondent as Plaintiff are contained at page 68 lines 3 to 22 and page 70 lines 5 to 7 where the Court in its conclusions stated that thus;
… In the case at hand, the Plaintiff before me has been able to prove his case on the preponderance of evidence and not on the weakness of the defence…

In the final analysis, this Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. The judgment of the High Court of Sokoto State sitting at Sokoto delivered by D. B. SAMBO, J in suit no: SS/1/2014 on the 27-5-2015 is hereby affirmed. Cost of N50,000.00 is awarded in favour of the Respondent against the Appellant.

?AHMAD OLAREWAJU BELGORE, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading, in draft, the judgment just

delivered by my learned brother, FREDERICK O. OHO, JCA, I am in agreement with him that this appeal has no merit and must fail.
I dismiss the appeal and abide by the consequential orders contained in the lead judgment.

AMINA AUDI WAMBAI, J.C.A.: I had the advantage of reading in advance the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Frederick O. Oho, JCA, I agree with the reasoning and conclusion. I adopt same as mine in dismissing the appeal. I also abide by the consequential order therein.