ADEMOK CONTINENTAL LTD & ANOR v. OGUN STATE GOVERNMENT
(2022)LCN/16005(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(IBADAN JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Thursday, January 06, 2022
CA/IB/311/2017
Before Our Lordships:
Ugochukwu Anthony Ogakwu Justice of the Court of Appeal
Abba Bello Mohammed Justice of the Court of Appeal
Abdul-Azeez Waziri Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
1. ADEMOK CONTINENTAL LIMITED [RC-847522] 2. HON. MUSA MARUF APPELANT(S)
And
OGUN STATE GOVERNMENT RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT CAN RAISE AN ISSUE SUO MOTU ON BEHALF OF PARTIES
It is rudimentary law that a Court should not raise an issue suo motu and unilaterally resolve it without hearing the parties, particularly the party that may be adversely affected by the issue raised: OSHODI vs. EYIFUNMI (2000) 13 NWLR (PT 684) 298 at 332, MOJEKWU vs. IWUCHUKWU (2004) LPELR (1903) 1 at 25 and LEADERS & COMPANY LTD vs. BAMAIYI (2010) LPELR (1771) 1 at 11-12. But did the lower Court raise any issue suo motu? PER OGAKWU, J.C.A.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT IS BOUND TO MAKE PRONOUNCEMENT ON THE DIFFERENT CONTENTIONS PLACE BY PARTIES BEFORE IT
The law remains settled beyond peradventure that a Court is bound to make a pronouncement on the disparate contentions placed by the parties before it and their effect on the action and the reliefs claimed. See EJOWHOMU vs. EDOK-ETER MANDILAS LTD (1986) 9 SC 41 at 102-103, AKINTOLA vs. SOLANO (1986) LPELR (360) 1, MARINE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES INC vs. NMA (2012) LPELR (20618) 1 at 27, ADEBAYO vs. A-G OGUN STATE (2008) LPELR (80) 1 at 17 and NKUMA vs. ODILI (2006) LPELR (2047) 1 at 17. In the circumstances, the lower Court, expanding the issue distilled at pre-trial to accommodate the question of alleged expropriation by the Government White Paper which was properly raised in the pleadings and evidence before it, is definitely not raising an issue suo motu; rather, it is an integral consideration of the case made out by the parties. See USIOBAIFO vs. USIOBAIFO (supra). In aliis verbis, the lower Court, drawing the necessary inferences from the materials before it is definitely not raising an issue suo motu; rather, it is the lower Court discharging its adjudicatory functions by making inferences and reaching conclusions from the facts before it. In IKENTA BEST (NIG) LTD vs. A-G RIVERS STATE (2008) 6 NWLR (PT 1084) 612 at 642 or (2008) LPELR (1476) 1 at 28-29 Tobi, JSC stated:
“A Court can only be accused of raising an issue, matter or fact suo motu, if the issue, matter or fact did not exist in the litigation. A Court cannot be accused of raising an issue, matter or fact suo motu if the issue, matter or fact exists in the litigation. A Judge, by the nature of his adjudicatory functions, can draw inferences from stated facts in a case and by such inferences, the Judge can arrive at conclusions. It will be wrong to say that inferences legitimately drawn from facts in the case are introduced suo motu. That is not correct.”
Also in ENEKWE vs. IMB LTD (2006) LPELR (1140) 1 at 25 Tobi, JSC stated:
“A judge has the right in our adjectival law to use particular words or phrases, which in his opinion, are germane to … facts of the case. In so far as he does that in line with the evidence before him, it will be unfair for counsel to castigate him or accuse him of raising issue suo motu.”
Furthermore, in OTU vs. ANI (2013) LPELR (21405) 1 at 31-34, Garba, JCA [now JSC] quipped:
“…it is clear that so long as the issue is derivable from the facts and evidence of the parties before the Court, the Court cannot be said to have raised it suo motu for reason only that it used particular words or phrases not used by the parties to describe the issue.”
See also SAHARA ENERGY RESOURCES LTD vs. OYEBOLA (2020) LPELR (51806) 1 at 75-79, TOWOJU vs. GOV OF KWARA STATE (2005) LPELR (5390) 1 at 38-39, CHIDI vs. CONSOLIDATED HALLMARK INSURANCE PLC (2018) LPELR (44384) 1 at 16-24, TSEGBA vs. REGD TRUSTEES OF MISSION HOUSE (2018) LPELR (44242) 1 at 51-52, FCMB vs. ACTION ALLIANCE (2018) LPELR (44445) 1 at 10-11 and FINNIH vs. IMADE (1992) 1 NWLR (PT 219) 511 at 537. PER OGAKWU, J.C.A.
THE POSITION OF LAW ON PLEADINGS
It is rudimentary law that pleadings are the skeletal framework while the evidence is the flesh and together they make up the body and flesh of the case of a party. Put differently, pleadings are the body and soul of any case in a skeletal form. They are built up and solidified by the evidence in support thereof. The pleadings are not evidence and if evidence is not adduced to support the pleadings, then the pleaded facts are of no consequence. Conversely, where evidence is adduced in respect of facts not covered by the pleadings, the said evidence goes to no issue and will be discountenanced by the Court since there would be no bare bones skeleton on which to engraft the flesh of the evidence. See generally JOLAYEMI vs. OLAOYE (2004) LPELR (1625) 1 at 17, OJOH vs. KAMALU (2005) LPELR (2389) 1 at 43-44, OWNERS of M/V GONGOLA HOPE vs. SMURFIT CASES (NIG) LTD (2007) LPELR (2849) 1 at 16, EMEGOKWE vs. OKADIGBO (1973) NMLR 192, PAN BISBILDER (NIG) LTD vs. FIRST BANK (2000) LPELR (2900) 1 at 20 and OKOKO vs. DAKOLO (2006) LPELR (2461) 1 at 42-43. PER OGAKWU, J.C.A.
WHETHER OR NOT EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN CROSS EXAMINATION BUT ON FACTS NOT PLEADED IS ADMISSIBLE IN COURT
It is hornbook law that evidence obtained in cross examination but on facts which are not pleaded is inadmissible. In other words, evidence elicited in cross examination, but which facts in respect thereof were not pleaded by either party, and on which issues were not joined and canvassed, goes to no issue. See OKWEJIMINOR vs. GBAKEJI (2008) ALL FWLR (PT 408) 405, PUNCH NIG LTD vs. EYITENE (2001) 17 NWLR (PT 741) 228 at 255 and 260 and ISHENO vs. JULIUS BERGER NIG PLC (2003) 14 NWLR (PT 840) 289 at 304.
Contrariwise, evidence obtained in cross examination on matters that are pleaded, id est, on matters on which issues were joined, is admissible: ADEOSUN vs. GOVERNOR OF EKITI STATE (2012) ALL FWLR (PT 619) 1044 at 1059, AKOMOLAFE vs. GUARDIAN PRESS LTD (2010) 3 NWLR (PT 338) at 351 and 353-354 and ADAMA Vs. KOGI STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY (supra) at 32-34. PER OGAKWU, J.C.A.
WHETHER OR NOT PARTIES ARE BOUND BY THEIR PLEADINGS
By all odds, the current trend of the Courts is to eschew technicality in pursuit of substantial justice. That undoubtedly is the trend. The law however is a technical discipline and what the Courts frown at and eschew is not technicality per se, but resort to undue technicality: A-G ENUGU STATE vs. AVOP NIG PLC (1995) 6 NWLR (PT 399) 90 at 123-124 and UNION BANK vs. BEAR MARINE SERVICES LTD (2018) LPELR (43692) 1 at 24-25. The rudimentary law that parties are bound by their pleadings and that facts not pleaded go to no issue is to ensure that the adverse party does not spring any surprise at trial by giving evidence on what was not pleaded; where that happens and un-pleaded facts are received in a proceeding, they are bound to be discountenanced. See AREMU vs. ADETORO (2007) LPELR (546) 1 at 16, KUBOR vs. DICKSON (2012) LPELR (9817) 1 at 59, OSOH vs. UNITY BANK (2013) LPELR (19968) 1 at 43 and AKPAMGBO-OKADIGBO vs. CHIDI (2015) LPELR (24565) 1 at 55. This rule of pleadings and evidence is a technical aspect of the law. The complaint about the consequences of an application of this abecedarian law is not a resort to undue technicality but bringing to bear the consequences of the technical aspect of the law in a matter; it is justice according to law. PER OGAKWU, J.C.A.
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The 1st Appellant was, upon its application, allocated a parcel of land situated at J4 Junction, along Benin-Sagamu Expressway, by the Respondent. Thereafter the Respondent granted the 1st Appellant a Certificate of Occupancy in respect of the said land. The Appellants developed the land and among others set up a functional Petrol Filling Station and a Guest House on the land.
The Respondent later set up a Judicial Commission of Inquiry on Land Matters (2004-2011) and a Petition was written to the said Commission of Inquiry complaining that the land allocated to the 1st Appellant was part of the Forestry Reserve, and that the siting of a Petrol Filling Station on the land posed a danger to the Forest Reserve. The Commission of Inquiry gave the Appellants a hearing; and in its Report, it recommended that the allocation be cancelled and urged that an alternative plot of land be given to the 1st Appellant. The Respondent accepted this recommendation. Subsequently, the Respondent demolished the developments and improvements made by the Appellants on the said land.
Consequent upon this, the Appellants instituted proceedings before the High Court of Ogun State in SUIT NO. HCT/100/2013: ADEMOK CONTINENTAL LTD & ANOR vs. OGUN STATE GOVERNMENT, wherein they claimed the following reliefs:
(a) A declaration that 1st Claimant’s title in the land and appurtenances situate, lying and being along Sagamu/Benin Way, J4 junction, Ijebu East Local Government Area, Ogun State of Nigeria, measuring approximately 1986.639 square meters, edged red in the survey plan No. IJC218 [OG] dated 24/2/2009, is valid and subsisting.
(b) An order declaring null and void, unconstitutional and of no effect whatsoever, the White paper issued by the Defendant, divesting the 1st Claimant of its right and interest in the land and appurtenances situate, lying and being along Sagamu/Benin Way, J4 junction Ijebu East Local Government Area, Ogun State of Nigeria, measuring approximately 1986. 639 square metres, edged red in the survey plan No. IJC218 [OG] dated 24/2/2009.
(c) The Claimant claims special damages as follows:-
[i] An order awarding the sum of N120,262,647.00 [One hundred and twenty million, two hundred and sixty two thousand six hundred and forty seven naira] only being the total value of the Claimants’ properties that were damaged by the Defendant’s agents on 10th July, 2013 as per the valuation report of J. Ajayi Patunola & Co., Estate Surveyors and valuers, dated 17th July, 2013.
(ii) Loss of income from sale of petrol [PMS] due to Damage from 8th July 2013 – June 2015 (24 months) which is N229,000.00 (Two hundred and Twenty nine Thousand naira) only per month which is the sum of N5,496,000.00 (Five million four hundred and ninety six thousand) for 24 months.
[iii] Loss of income from sale of diesel [AGO] due to damage from 17th June 2013 – June 2015 (24 months) which is N200,000.00 (Two hundred thousand naira) only per month which is the sum of N4,800,000.00 (Four million eight hundred thousand naira) only for 24 months.
[iv] Loss of income from the rent of the lock up shops due to the damage which is a total of 22 lock up shops from 10th July 2013-June 2015 (24 months each) at the rate of N3,000.00 (Three thousand naira) only which is N66,000.00 per month which is the sum of N1,584,000.00 (One million five hundred and eighty four thousand) only for 24 months.
[v] Loss of income from booking of the 20 Rooms Guest house from 10th July 2013-June 2015 (24 months) at the rate of N5,000 (five thousand naira) only per room for a night and N100,000 (one hundred thousand naira) only for the 20 rooms per night and a total of N3,000,000.00 (Three million naira) only for a month for the 20 rooms which is the sum of N72,000,000.00 (Seventy two million naira) only for 24 months.
Further Special damages from:
[vi] Loss of income from sale of petrol [PMS] due to damage at the rate of N229,000.00 (Two Hundred and twenty nine Thousand naira) only per month from July 2015 till when judgment is delivered in this suit.
[vii] Loss of income from sale of diesel [AGO] due to damage at the rate of N200,000.00 (Two Hundred Thousand naira) only per month from July 2015 till when judgment is given in this suit.
[viii] Loss of income from the rent of lock up stores due to damage which is a total of 22 lock up shops at the rate of N3000 (three thousand naira) only per lock up shop and N66,000.00 (Two Hundred and Twenty nine Thousand naira) only per month from July 2015 till when judgment is delivered in this suit.
[ix] Loss of income from the booking of the 20 Rooms Guest House due to damage at the rate of N5000 (five thousand naira) only per room for a night and N100,000.00 (One Hundred thousand naira) only for 20 rooms per night and a total of 3,000,000.00 (Three million naira) only for a month for the 20 rooms from July 2015 till when judgment is delivered in this suit.
Further or in the Alternative to paragraphs 3 (vi-ix) general damages.
[d] General damages in the sum of N200,000.00 [Two hundred million naira] only for the loss of income from the use of Ademok Filling Station, Ademok lock up shops, and Ademok Guest House due to the demolition of these structures by the Defendant.
Pleadings were filed and exchanged by the parties and the matter was subjected to a full dressed plenary trial at which the parties adduced testimonial and documentary evidence. At the end of the trial, the lower Court, in its judgment which was delivered on 11th April 2017 dismissed the Appellants’ action. The Appellants’ miffed by the decision of the lower Court, appealed against the same by Notice of Appeal filed on 18th April 2017. The scarified judgment of the lower Court is at pages 557-568 of the Records, while the Notice of Appeal is at pages 569-577 of the Records.
As stipulated and required by the Rules of Court, the Records of Appeal was compiled and transmitted on 7th August 2017 but deemed as properly transmitted on 21st October 2020. Briefs of Argument were then filed and exchanged by the parties. The briefs filed by the Appellants are the Appellants’ Brief filed on 29th January 2021 but deemed as properly filed on 1st March 2021 and the Appellants’ Reply Brief filed on 13th October 2021 but deemed as properly filed on 10th November 2021. The Respondent’s Brief was filed on 13th July 2021, but deemed as properly filed on 10th November, 2021.
By Order 19 Rule 5 of the Court of Appeal Rules, the appellant may file a reply brief which shall deal with all new points raised and argued in the respondent’s brief. By this provision, the main purpose or function of a reply brief is to answer any new points arising from the respondent’s brief. A reply brief is not used to strengthen the appellant’s brief by way of repeating the arguments made in the appellant’s brief. The reply brief is not a recitation of the appellant’s brief. See OKONJI vs. NJOKANMA (1999) 12 SCNJ 259 at 277, OLAFISOYE vs. FRN (2004) 1 SC (PT II) 27 or (2004) 4 NWLR (PT 864) 580 at 644, MOZIE vs. MBAMALU (2006) 15 NWLR (PT 1003) 460 at 469, IGWE vs. THE STATE (2021) LPELR (53499) 1 at 3-4 and PROJECT VISION ACTUALIZERS LTD vs. ILUSHIN ESTATES LTD (2021) LPELR (55629) 1 at 27-28.
The Appellants’ Reply Brief in this matter is not a proper reply brief. The Appellants by the said Reply Brief are having a second bite at the cherry by repeating the argument and submissions already made in the Appellants’ brief. When, as in this case, a reply brief is not a reply to new points raised in the respondent’s brief, then the Court will discountenance the reply brief. See ABDULLAHI vs. MILITARY ADMINISTRATOR (2009) LPELR (27) 1 at 13, AKAYEPE vs. AKAYEPE (2009) LPELR (326) 1 at 18-19, OGUANUHU vs. CHIEGBOKA (2013) LPELR (19980) 1 at 17 and AGBONENI vs. ALAKIU (2018) LPELR (44807) 1 at 14-15. Accordingly, on the settled state of the law, I will discountenance the Appellants’ Reply Brief and it would play no part in the consideration and resolution of this appeal.
The Appellants distilled three issues for determination, which issues were adopted by the Respondent. The issues are as follows:
1. Whether his Lordship was right to have formulated and determined an issue suo motu outside the ones agreed to by parties in the suit without inviting the parties to address him on same.
Distilled from ground 3 [A] of the Notice of Appeal.
2. Whether in the circumstance of the pleadings and the evidence at the trial, the Court has done substantial justice between the parties.
Distilled from grounds 3 [B], [F], [G] and [H] of the Notice of Appeal.
3. Whether the trial judge was right in refusing to be bound by the decision of the Supreme Court in Nigerian Engineering Works Ltd v. Denap Claimant now Appellant had a valid certificate of Occupancy and that the acceptance by the Respondent of the recommendations of the Lands Commission of Enquiry does not amount to valid revocation under the law.
Distilled from grounds 3 [C], [D] and [E] of the Notice of Appeal. The issues crafted are idoneous. It is therefore on the basis of the said issues that I will review the submissions of learned counsel and resolve this appeal. I will however consider issue numbers two and three together.
ISSUE NUMBER ONE
Whether his Lordship was right to have formulated and determined an issue suo motu outside the ones agreed to by parties in the suit without inviting the parties to address him on the same.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANTS’ COUNSEL
The Appellants submit that the essence of formulation of issues is to identify areas of consideration for the just disposal of the case from the issues settled in the pleadings vide USIOBAIFO vs. USIOBAIFO (2000) LPELR (11973) (CA) and UKPANAH vs. AYAYA (2011) 1 NWLR (PT 1227) 61 at 64. It was opined that the duty or function of the Court is to limit itself to such issues raised. The cases of ADESIDA vs. ABEGUNDE (2009) LPELR-3613 (CA), IGWE UZUR & SONS NIG LTD vs. ONWUZOR (2007) 4 NWLR (PT 1024) 303 at 318 and TANKO vs. NONGHA (2005) LPELR-11405 (CA) were referred to.
It was therefore submitted that it was wrong for the lower Court to have formulated a sole issue and predicate its judgment on it without recourse to the pleadings and issues formulated by the parties at the pre-trial conference. It was stated that the issue formulated by the lower Court did not take into consideration the evidence of the parties that no valid notice of revocation was served and furthermore that the lower Court did not invite the parties to address it on the issue it formulated; which was a denial of fair hearing. The cases of SHASI vs. SMITH (2009) LPELR-3039 (SC) or (2009) 18 NWLR (PT 1173) 330 and OKE vs. UBA PLC (2015) LPELR-24827 (CA) were relied upon. It was then posited that the breach of fair hearing vitiates the proceedings and renders the same null and void. The cases of EKPETO vs. WANOGHO (2004) 18 NWLR (PT 205) [sic] 394 and OKE vs. UBA PLC (supra) were called in aid.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL
It is the Respondent’s submission that the lower Court only expanded the issue number one as formulated by the parties, after it identified that the just disposal of the case had to involve a consideration of the alleged expropriation of the 1st Appellant’s land consequent upon the Government White Paper. The cases of USIOBAIFO vs. USIOBAIFO (supra), ACB vs. LOSADA (NIG) LTD (1995) LPELR-205 (SC) and OLORUNKUNLE vs. ADIGUN (2012) 6 NWLR (PT 1297) 407 at 420 were cited in support.
It was asserted that the lower Court considered the pleadings filed and rightly found that the Appellants did not avail the Court with facts on the basis of which to consider their claim for a declaration that the White Paper issued by the Respondent is null and void, unconstitutional and of no effect whatsoever. It was stated that issues should be formulated in general practical terms and tailored to the real issues in controversy in the case vide FBN vs. OKON (2017) LPELR-43530 (CA).
RESOLUTION OF ISSUE NUMBER ONE
The quiddity of the contention under this issue is that the lower Court formulated the issue on which it determined the action suo motu and that it did not invite the parties to address it on the said issue. It is rudimentary law that a Court should not raise an issue suo motu and unilaterally resolve it without hearing the parties, particularly the party that may be adversely affected by the issue raised: OSHODI vs. EYIFUNMI (2000) 13 NWLR (PT 684) 298 at 332, MOJEKWU vs. IWUCHUKWU (2004) LPELR (1903) 1 at 25 and LEADERS & COMPANY LTD vs. BAMAIYI (2010) LPELR (1771) 1 at 11-12. But did the lower Court raise any issue suo motu?
From the extant pleadings of the parties, the Amended Statement of Claim and the 2nd Further Amended Statement of Defence, the parties were at issue on the propriety of the Government White Paper which expropriated and divested the 1st Appellant of its land. Indeed, the Appellants claimed a declaration that the title to the land was still valid and subsisting and for an order that the White Paper which divested the 1st Appellant of its right and interest in the land is null and void, unconstitutional and of no effect whatsoever. So on the facts placed before the lower Court on the pleadings, it was in issue whether the 1st Appellant’s title over the land was still subsisting and the effect of the White Paper on the said title.
Without a doubt, the first issue distilled for determination at the Pre-Trial Conference was an interrogation of whether the 1st Appellant’s Certificate of Occupancy over the land was validly issued. The lower Court was cognisant of the issues agreed upon at the pre-trial and duly set them out in the Judgment at page 560 of the Records. But then, well aware of the relief claimed in respect of the divestment of the 1st Appellant’s interest in the land, the lower Court recognised that the question had been placed before it and that it was bound to decide and pronounce upon the same. Consequently, it stated that the first issue formulated at pre-trial would have to be considered in two parts in order to accommodate the alleged expropriation of the 1st Appellant’s land by the Government White Paper. (See page 560 of the Records). The lower Court then proceeded to state as follows at page 561 of the Records:
“In effect, the 1st issue for determination which is in two parts, is whether the certificate of occupancy was validly issued; if yes, whether it is still subsisting or has been validly cancelled or the land validly expropriated (as alleged by the claimants)”.
The law remains settled beyond peradventure that a Court is bound to make a pronouncement on the disparate contentions placed by the parties before it and their effect on the action and the reliefs claimed. See EJOWHOMU vs. EDOK-ETER MANDILAS LTD (1986) 9 SC 41 at 102-103, AKINTOLA vs. SOLANO (1986) LPELR (360) 1, MARINE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES INC vs. NMA (2012) LPELR (20618) 1 at 27, ADEBAYO vs. A-G OGUN STATE (2008) LPELR (80) 1 at 17 and NKUMA vs. ODILI (2006) LPELR (2047) 1 at 17. In the circumstances, the lower Court, expanding the issue distilled at pre-trial to accommodate the question of alleged expropriation by the Government White Paper which was properly raised in the pleadings and evidence before it, is definitely not raising an issue suo motu; rather, it is an integral consideration of the case made out by the parties. See USIOBAIFO vs. USIOBAIFO (supra). In aliis verbis, the lower Court, drawing the necessary inferences from the materials before it is definitely not raising an issue suo motu; rather, it is the lower Court discharging its adjudicatory functions by making inferences and reaching conclusions from the facts before it. In IKENTA BEST (NIG) LTD vs. A-G RIVERS STATE (2008) 6 NWLR (PT 1084) 612 at 642 or (2008) LPELR (1476) 1 at 28-29 Tobi, JSC stated:
“A Court can only be accused of raising an issue, matter or fact suo motu, if the issue, matter or fact did not exist in the litigation. A Court cannot be accused of raising an issue, matter or fact suo motu if the issue, matter or fact exists in the litigation. A Judge, by the nature of his adjudicatory functions, can draw inferences from stated facts in a case and by such inferences, the Judge can arrive at conclusions. It will be wrong to say that inferences legitimately drawn from facts in the case are introduced suo motu. That is not correct.”
Also in ENEKWE vs. IMB LTD (2006) LPELR (1140) 1 at 25 Tobi, JSC stated:
“A judge has the right in our adjectival law to use particular words or phrases, which in his opinion, are germane to … facts of the case. In so far as he does that in line with the evidence before him, it will be unfair for counsel to castigate him or accuse him of raising issue suo motu.”
Furthermore, in OTU vs. ANI (2013) LPELR (21405) 1 at 31-34, Garba, JCA [now JSC] quipped:
“…it is clear that so long as the issue is derivable from the facts and evidence of the parties before the Court, the Court cannot be said to have raised it suo motu for reason only that it used particular words or phrases not used by the parties to describe the issue.”
See also SAHARA ENERGY RESOURCES LTD Vs. OYEBOLA (2020) LPELR (51806) 1 at 75-79, TOWOJU vs. GOV OF KWARA STATE (2005) LPELR (5390) 1 at 38-39, CHIDI vs. CONSOLIDATED HALLMARK INSURANCE PLC (2018) LPELR (44384) 1 at 16-24, TSEGBA vs. REGD TRUSTEES OF MISSION HOUSE (2018) LPELR (44242) 1 at 51-52, FCMB vs. ACTION ALLIANCE (2018) LPELR (44445) 1 at 10-11 and FINNIH vs. IMADE (1992) 1 NWLR (PT 219) 511 at 537.
Accordingly, it is a misappreciation and misapprehension of the proper discharge by the lower Court of its duty, that the Appellants misconstrued as the lower Court raising an issue suo motu. No. The lower Court did not raise any issue suo motu. It merely discharged its duty of considering and pronouncing upon all the facts disclosed by the evidence and placed before it by the parties. Indubitably, this issue number one must perforce be resolved against the Appellants. Nevertheless, the per during question is whether the lower Court was correct in the inferences and conclusions it arrived at. We will find out in a trice when we consider issue numbers two and three.
ISSUE NUMBERS TWO AND THREE
Whether in the circumstance of the pleadings and the evidence at the trial, the Court has done substantial justice between the parties.
Whether the trial judge was right in refusing to be bound by the decision of the Supreme Court in Nigerian Engineering Works Ltd v. Denap Ltd. Claimant now Appellant had a valid certificate of Occupancy and that the acceptance by the Respondent of the recommendations of the Lands Commission of Enquiry does not amount to valid revocation under the law.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANTS’ COUNSEL
The Appellants refer to the Black’s Law Dictionary on the meaning of substantial justice and submit that Sections 28 and 44 of the Land Use Act set out the procedure for a valid revocation of a right of occupancy. It was opined that the lower Court having held that the acceptance of the recommendations of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry by the Respondent was not a valid revocation of interest in land, failed to do substantial justice when it still dismissed that Appellants’ claims. It was stated that the Appellants had proved the area of land their claim relates to vide DADA vs. DOSUNMU (2006) 18 NWLR (PT 1010) 134 and that it did not form part of the Forest Reserve as contended by the Respondent.
It is the further submission of the Appellants that material facts in respect of their case were pleaded and that in consequence, the lower Court was wrong to hold that the Appellants’ pleadings were bereft of any facts challenging the proceedings of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry, the consequential White Paper and alleged expropriation of the Appellants’ land. The cases of ONYERO vs. NWADIKE (1996) 9 NWLR (PT 471) 231, AJADI vs. AJIBOLA (2004) 16 NWLR (PT 898) 91 and AIRHIAVBERE vs. OSHIOMHOLE (2012) LPELR-9824 (CA) were relied upon. It was posited that the judgment of a Court must demonstrate a full and dispassionate consideration of all issues properly before it and that the Court must properly evaluate the evidence and ascribe probative value thereto; which the lower Court failed to do, especially against the background of the testimony from the Respondent’s witness that no revocation notice was served on the Appellants. The decision of the lower Court, it was asserted, was predicated on unnecessary technicalities which occasioned a miscarriage of substantial justice to the case of the Appellants. The cases of EZEOKE vs. NWAGBO (1988) 1 NWLR (PT 72) 616, OKONKWO vs. OKONKWO (2010) LPELR-9357 (SC), OGUNLEYE vs. OYEWOLE (2000) 14 NWLR (PT 678) 290, NEKA vs. KUNINI (2015) LPELR-26031 at 43-44 and USMAN vs. TAMADENA & CO LTD (2015) LPELR-40376 (CA) were called in aid.
The Appellants’ contention on the third issue is that the lower Court having held that the 1st Appellant’s Certificate of Occupancy was validly issued and that there was no proper revocation of the same, erred when it dismissed the Appellants’ case. The case of MORONFOYE vs. ABDULATEEF (2018) LPELR-44237 (CA) was cited in support. It was stated that by the doctrine of stare decisis, the lower Court was bound to follow the decision of the Supreme Court in NIGERIAN ENGINEERING WORKS LTD vs. DENAP (2001) 18 NWLR (PT 746) 758 on the criteria for valid revocation of a right of occupancy. It was maintained that it was gross insubordination for a Court not to follow the decision of the Apex Court vide DALHATU vs. SARAKI [sic] (2003)15 NWLR (PT 843) 310 at 336. It was conclusively submitted that this Court should assume full jurisdiction pursuant to Sections 15 and 23 of the Court of Appeal Act and enter judgment for the Appellants as claimed. The case of EMIRI vs. IMIEYEH (1999) 4 SC (PT 3) 1 was referred to.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL
The Respondent states that the current trend of the Courts is to do substantial justice vide ANOZIA vs. A-G LAGOS (2010) LPELR-3778 (CA); and that the lower Court did substantial justice in the case as it based its judgment on the pleadings of the parties. It was submitted that facts not pleaded go to no issue and cannot be inferred, and furthermore, that the address of counsel will not take the place of pleadings. The cases of OKOKO vs. DAKOLO (2006) LPELR-2461 (SC), NIGERIAN ROMANIAN WOOD vs. AKINGBULUGBE (2010) LPELR-9140 (CA), BURAIMOH vs. BAMGBOSE (1989) LPELR-818 (SC) and HAMIDU vs. KADUNA ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION PLC (2019) LPELR-48281 (CA) were relied upon. It was maintained that the lower Court rightly found that the averments in the Appellants’ pleadings did not challenge the proceedings of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry, the Consequential Government White Paper and the expropriation of the Appellants’ land by the Respondent.
Referring to the case of NIGERIAN ENGINEERING WORKS LTD vs. DENAP LTD (2001) LPELR-2002 (SC), the Respondent submitted that the Appellants did not plead and did not give evidence that they were not served with a notice of revocation, but that Appellants’ Counsel merely alluded to the same in his final written address. It was asserted that the Appellants cannot rely on evidence extracted from the Respondent’s witness under cross examination, where the evidence is not supported by the pleadings. It was posited that it is for a claimant to lead evidence to establish his claim and not to rely on the weakness of the defence. The case of AKINBADE vs. BABATUNDE (2017) LPELR-43463 (SC) was called in aid.
Conclusively, the Respondent submits that the findings of facts made by the lower Court were based on the evidence before the Court and that an appellate Court will not interfere with the findings of facts except where they are perverse or are not supported by the evidence or has not been a proper exercise of judicial discretion or the trial Court did not make good use of the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses. Also where the trial Court has drawn wrong conclusions from the accepted credible evidence or has taken an erroneous view of the evidence adduced or where the findings were arrived at as a result of wrong application of some principle of substantive or procedural law. The case of UDE vs. CHIMBO (1998) LPELR – 3288 (SC) was cited in support.
RESOLUTION OF ISSUE NUMBERS TWO AND THREE
I have already set out the reliefs claimed by the Appellants in this action. The principal reliefs are the reliefs claimed in paragraph 24 (a) and (b) of the Amended Statement of Claim (page 12 of the Records). All the other reliefs are claims for damages. They are like leeches and their success is dependent on the success of the principal reliefs. The legal principle is sublato principali tollitur adjunctum [co. Litt 389] – (the principal being taken away, its adjunct is also taken away): ADEGOKE MOTORS vs. ADESANYA (1989) 3 NWLR (PT 109) 250 at 269, SIMEON vs. COLLEGE of EDUCATION, EKIADOLOR (2014) LPELR (23320) 1 at 39 and OLUSANYA vs. UBA PLC (2017) LPELR (42348) 1 at 32. The lower Court found that the Appellants were not entitled to any of the principal reliefs claimed, consequent upon which the entire action fell like a pack of cards.
From the principal reliefs claimed, it is obvious that the Appellants’ case is that the Certificate of Occupancy issued to the 1st Appellant is still valid and subsisting and that the White Paper divesting the 1st Appellant of its right and interest in the land is null and void, unconstitutional and of no effect whatsoever. From these reliefs claimed, the onus was on the Appellants to not only plead facts on the basis of which it can be held that the Certificate of Occupancy was valid and subsisting, and also that the White Paper was null and void, unconstitutional and of no effect whatsoever. Allied to the facts being pleaded is that evidence must be adduced to prove the pleaded facts. The case at the lower Court was fought on the pleadings filed and exchanged by the parties and on which they joined issues. It is rudimentary law that pleadings are the skeletal framework while the evidence is the flesh and together they make up the body and flesh of the case of a party. Put differently, pleadings are the body and soul of any case in a skeletal form. They are built up and solidified by the evidence in support thereof. The pleadings are not evidence and if evidence is not adduced to support the pleadings, then the pleaded facts are of no consequence. Conversely, where evidence is adduced in respect of facts not covered by the pleadings, the said evidence goes to no issue and will be discountenanced by the Court since there would be no bare bones skeleton on which to engraft the flesh of the evidence. See generally JOLAYEMI vs. OLAOYE (2004) LPELR (1625) 1 at 17, OJOH vs. KAMALU (2005) LPELR (2389) 1 at 43-44, OWNERS of M/V GONGOLA HOPE vs. SMURFIT CASES (NIG) LTD (2007) LPELR (2849) 1 at 16, EMEGOKWE vs. OKADIGBO (1973) NMLR 192, PAN BISBILDER (NIG) LTD vs. FIRST BANK (2000) LPELR (2900) 1 at 20 and OKOKO vs. DAKOLO (2006) LPELR (2461) 1 at 42-43.
The Appellants pleaded that due process was followed in the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy to the 1st Appellant. The Respondent retorted that the said Certificate of Occupancy was issued as a result of abuse of office by the 2nd Appellant who at the material time was a member of the Ogun State House of Assembly. The lower Court after considering the evidence and the law conclusively held at page 565 of the Records, that the Certificate of Occupancy was validly issued to the 1st Appellant. The lower Court thereafter considered the second limb thrust up by the relief claimed by the Appellants in paragraph 24 (a) of the Amended Statement of Claim, id est, whether the said Certificate of Occupancy was still subsisting. The lower Court then rightly held that the subsistence of the said Certificate of Occupancy was affected by the acceptance by the Respondent in its White Paper, of the recommendations of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry, and the Certificate of Occupancy was cancelled. It is consequent upon the acceptance of the recommendations that the Appellants claimed the relief in paragraph 24 (b) of the Amended Statement of Claim for an order that the White Paper was null and void, unconstitutional and of no effect whatsoever (see pages 565-566 of the Records).
The lower Court then proceeded to consider the skeletal framework on which the Appellants built their case and held that there were no facts pleaded on the basis of which the relief claimed in paragraph 24 (b) of the Amended Statement of Claim can be anchored. Furthermore, that there were no facts pleaded on service of notice of revocation of Certificate of Occupancy and that the submissions of learned counsel in that regard cannot be a substitute for the pleadings and evidence. Hear the lower Court at pages 566 to 568 of the Records:
“It is trite that relief(s) claimed in an action must draw strength from the averments in the pleadings. In fact, where there are no facts pleaded in support of a claim, the claim would have no chance of success. Surprisingly, going through the entire pleadings of the claimants and evidence, there are no facts and or evidence to sustain the above claim. Except to plead in paragraph 22 of the Amended Statement of Claim that the defendant’s decision to demolish their properties on the land was baseless and borne out of political vendetta, the pleading is bereft of any fact(s) challenging the proceedings/recommendations of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry and or the consequential Government White Paper on the Commission’s report neither was there any fact(s) pleaded in challenge of the validity of the alleged expropriation of the land by the defendant and or divestiture of 1st Claimant of its title.
…In paragraphs 4.3.8 to 4.3.13 of his written address, the claimants’ counsel alluded to the facts that no notice of revocation of exhibit J validly issued was served on the claimants and that the demolition of claimants’ property on the land in dispute was as a consequence illegal, the submission however has no basis in the pleading and evidence of the claimants before the Court. It is trite that counsel’s address is no substitute for pleading and evidence. See: OYEKAN vs. AKINRINWA (1996) 7 NWLR (PT 459) 128; TECHNO PLASTIC vs. JATAU (1986) 4 NWLR (PT 38) 771 at 778. The Court cannot presume or take for granted facts of revocation and or service of revocation notice, they are material facts which ought to be pleaded and evidence led on them. In this case, neither has a mention in the pleading and evidence of the claimants. The claimants who want the Court to declare as null, void, unconstitutional and of no effect the white paper by which the defendant divested the 1st claimant of proprietary right in the land in dispute, unfortunately did not avail the Court with the facts on which to proceed to consider the claim. That is fatal to the claimants’ claim. It follows therefore that 1st claimant having not challenged the White Paper (which still subsists) and or the validity of the alleged expropriation of its land under the law, its contention that the right of occupancy granted it is still subsisting is a non-starter. To be entitled to the declaration, the claimant must of necessity challenge successfully the lawfulness of the cancellation of its allocation.”
The Appellants forcefully argue that they pleaded material facts on which the relief claimed in paragraph 24 (b) of the Amended Statement of Claim was predicated and they refer to paragraphs 17, 19, 20 and 22 of the Amended Statement of Claim. I have, with the finery of a judicial toothcomb, considered the said paragraphs, and indeed the entire averments in the Amended Statement of Claim, since it is trite law that paragraphs of pleadings are to be read together and not a few paragraphs in isolation: OKOCHI vs. ANIMKWOI (2003) LPELR (2455) 1 at 16, AZUBUOGU vs. ORANEZI (2017) LPELR (42669) 1 at 19-20 and ADAMA vs. KOGI STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY (2019) LPELR (47424) 1 at 15; and I am not in any doubt whatsoever that the lower Court got it right when it held that the Appellants’ pleadings was deficient and lacking in averments on which proceedings of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry, the Government White Paper and the acceptance of the recommendations of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry leading to the divestment of the 1st Appellants interest in the land, can be interrogated.
Throughout the entire gamut of the Amended Statement of Claim, no facts were pleaded as to the service of a notice of revocation vel non on the 1st Appellant. So the parties were not at issue on whether a notice of revocation was served as required by Sections 28 and 44 of the Land Use Act. Without a doubt, the Appellants extracted from the Respondents witness, under cross examination, that no notice of revocation was served on the 1st Appellant; but being evidence that is not based on pleaded facts, it went to no issue. It is hornbook law that evidence obtained in cross examination but on facts which are not pleaded is inadmissible. In other words, evidence elicited in cross examination, but which facts in respect thereof were not pleaded by either party, and on which issues were not joined and canvassed, goes to no issue. See OKWEJIMINOR vs. GBAKEJI (2008) ALL FWLR (PT 408) 405, PUNCH NIG LTD vs. EYITENE (2001) 17 NWLR (PT 741) 228 at 255 and 260 and ISHENO vs. JULIUS BERGER NIG PLC (2003) 14 NWLR (PT 840) 289 at 304.
Contrariwise, evidence obtained in cross examination on matters that are pleaded, id est, on matters on which issues were joined, is admissible: ADEOSUN vs. GOVERNOR OF EKITI STATE (2012) ALL FWLR (PT 619) 1044 at 1059, AKOMOLAFE vs. GUARDIAN PRESS LTD (2010) 3 NWLR (PT 338) at 351 and 353-354 and ADAMA Vs. KOGI STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY (supra) at 32-34.
In the diacritical circumstances of this matter, there were no facts pleaded on service of notice of revocation, no joinder of issues thereon; in consequence the evidence elicited under cross examination that notice of revocation was not served is inadmissible.
The Appellants contended that the lower Court did not do substantial justice but resorted to reliance on unnecessary technicalities and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of substantial justice to the Appellants. By all odds, the current trend of the Courts is to eschew technicality in pursuit of substantial justice. That undoubtedly is the trend. The law however is a technical discipline and what the Courts frown at and eschew is not technicality per se, but resort to undue technicality: A-G ENUGU STATE vs. AVOP NIG PLC (1995) 6 NWLR (PT 399) 90 at 123-124 and UNION BANK vs. BEAR MARINE SERVICES LTD (2018) LPELR (43692) 1 at 24-25. The rudimentary law that parties are bound by their pleadings and that facts not pleaded go to no issue is to ensure that the adverse party does not spring any surprise at trial by giving evidence on what was not pleaded; where that happens and un-pleaded facts are received in a proceeding, they are bound to be discountenanced. See AREMU vs. ADETORO (2007) LPELR (546) 1 at 16, KUBOR vs. DICKSON (2012) LPELR (9817) 1 at 59, OSOH vs. UNITY BANK (2013) LPELR (19968) 1 at 43 and AKPAMGBO-OKADIGBO vs. CHIDI (2015) LPELR (24565) 1 at 55. This rule of pleadings and evidence is a technical aspect of the law. The complaint about the consequences of an application of this abecedarian law is not a resort to undue technicality but bringing to bear the consequences of the technical aspect of the law in a matter; it is justice according to law.
In ADENIJI V. THE STATE (1992) 4 NWLR (PT 234) 248 at 265-266, Tobi, JCA (as he then was) asseverated:
“I realise that Courts of law seem to be using the word technicality out of tone or out of turn, vis-a-vis the larger concept of ‘justice’. In most cases, it has become a vogue that once a Court is inclined to doing substantial justice by deflecting from the rules, it quickly draws a distinction between justice and technicality so much so that it has become not only a cliche but an enigma in our jurisprudence. In most cases when the Courts invoke the ‘substantial justice’ principle, they have at the back of their minds the desire to put to naught technicalities which the adverse party relies upon to drown an otherwise meritorious case.
We seem to be overstretching the ‘technicality concept’. We should try to narrow down the already onerous and amorphous concept in our judicial process. A technicality in a matter could arise if a party is relying on abstract or inordinate legalism to becloud or drown the merits of a case. A technicality arises if a party quickly takes an immediately available opportunity, however infinitesimal it may be, to work against the merits of the opponent’s case. In other words, he holds and relies tenaciously unto the rules of Court with little or no regard to the justice of the matter. As far as he is concerned, the rules must be followed to the last sentences, the last words and the last letters without much ado, and with little or no regard to the injustice that will be caused the opponent.
…Where an issue affects the props, foundations and fundamentals of the case, a Court of law is not competent to hide under the rule against technicalities and ignore it.”
See also YUSUF vs. ADEGOKE (2007) LPELR (3534) 1 at 40-41 and OKUNLOLA vs. SHOYINKA (2019) LPELR (50749) 1 at 29-32. On the state of the pleadings and evidence elicited on facts not pleaded and on which issues were not joined, the lower Court could not have relied on such evidence by hiding under the trend of eschewing technicalities in order to do substantial justice. No. The approach of the lower Court and decision it reached served the justice of the matter.
The Appellants make a foofaraw that the lower Court did not follow the decision of the Supreme Court in NIGERIAN ENGINEERING WORKS LTD vs. DENAP LTD (supra) which laid down the criteria for valid revocation of a right of occupancy and that it was a disregard of the doctrine of stare decisis which amounted to gross insubordination vide DALHATU vs. TURAKI (2003) 15 NWLR (PT 843) 310 at 336. It is trite law that facts are the arrowhead or fountainhead of the law. The decision in a case is intimately related to the facts that induced the decision. Where the facts of a given matter are different from the decision in an earlier case, it will be pulling the ratio in the earlier case out of context and giving it a general application if it is sought to apply the decision to totally different facts. As stated by Oputa, JSC in ADEGOKE MOTORS LTD vs. ADESANYA (1989) 5 SC 92 at 100:
“It also appeared in rather bold relief that there is now a tendency among our lawyers, and sometimes among some of our Judges, to consider pronouncements made by Justices of the Supreme Court in unnecessary isolation from the facts and surrounding circumstances of those particular cases in which those pronouncements were made. I think it ought to be obvious by now, that it is the facts and circumstances of any given case that frame the issues for decision in that particular case. Pronouncements of our Justices whether they are rationes decidendi or obiter dicta must therefore be inextricably and intimately related to the facts of the given case. Citing those pronouncements without relating them to the facts that induced them will be citing them out of their proper context, for, without known facts, it is impossible to know the law on those facts.
… Court’s decisions and pronouncements derive their strength, their persuasive potency, their inspiration and therefore their value as precedent from the facts of the case as pleaded and as presented.”
Therefore, the principle decided and laid down in NIGERIAN ENGINEERING WORKS LTD vs. DENAP LTD (supra) will only be applicable where the facts of this matter as pleaded are such that the principle decided in the said case will be applicable. While the doctrine of stare decisis or binding judicial precedent enjoins the Courts to follow the decisions of superior Courts, it has to be remembered that what the earlier decisions establish is only a principle, not a rule. Rules operate in an all or nothing dimension. Principles do not. Principles merely incline decisions one way or the other. They form a principium or a starting point. Where one ultimately lands from that starting point will largely depend on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in hand: SAHARA ENERGY RESOURCES LTD vs. OYEBOLA (supra) at 43-44. Let me invite my Lord, Oputa, JSC to speak to this matter. Hear him in FAWEHINMI vs. NBA (NO. 2) (1989) LPELR (1259) 1 at 139:
“It is good to call the Court’s attention to its pronouncements in a previous case. Under our system (which we inherited from England and from the common law) the formulation of general principles has not preceded decisions. Our case law is the law of the practitioner rather than the law of the philosopher. Decisions have drawn their inspiration and their strength from the very facts which framed the issues for decision. Once made, these decisions control future judgments of the Courts in like or similar cases. The facts of two cases must be either the same or at least similar before the decision in one can be used, and even then, as a guide to the decision in another case. What the former decision establishes is only a principle not a rule. Rules operate in an all or nothing dimension. Principles do not. They merely form a principium, a starting point. Where one ultimately lands will then depend on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in hand.”
See also OGUNNUBI vs. OGUNNUBI (2021) LPELR (53497) 1 at 10-12.
So, for the principle decided to be applicable, it has to be shown that on the facts pleaded, the applicability of the principle is availing in order for it to be argued that the lower Court disregarded the doctrine of stare decisis. As I have already demonstrated in this judgment, the want of pleadings on revocation and service of notice of revocation is such that takes the applicability of the criteria for revocation of a right of occupancy laid down by the apex Court in NIGERIAN ENGINEERING WORKS LTD vs. DENAP LTD far from the peculiar facts of this matter.
The judge at nisi prius is a peculiar adjudicator. He is the one in the heat of the battle at the trial. He sees the faces of the witnesses, hears their testimony, feels the tension and observes the demeanour of the witnesses. It is therefore within the province of the trial judge who saw, heard and assessed the witnesses to evaluate and ascribe probative value to the evidence adduced. See ONI vs. JOHNSON (2015) LPELR (24545) 1 at 35-38. Where a trial Court unquestionably evaluates and justifiably appraises the facts, it is not the business of an appellate Court to substitute its own views for the views of the trial Court. The trial Court considers the evidence adduced, decides which evidence to prefer on the basis of how the evidence preponderates and then makes logical and consequential findings of facts: ADEYEYE vs. AJIBOYE (1987) 1 NWLR (PT 61) 432 at 451, STEPHEN vs. THE STATE (1986) 5 NWLR (PT 46) 978 at 1005 and UNITED MICROFINANCE BANK LTD EKPAN vs. ADJAKA (2015) LPELR (24541) 1 at 41-43.
The law is that the conclusions of the trial Court on the facts is presumed to be correct, so that presumption must be displaced by the person seeking to upset the judgment on the facts. See WILLIAMS vs. JOHNSON (1937) 2 WACA 253, BALOGUN vs. AGBOOLA (1974) 1 ALL NLR (PT2) 66, BAMGBOYE vs. OLAREWAJU (1991) 4 NWLR (PT 184) 132 at 156 and EHOLOR vs. OSAYANDE (1992) LPELR (8053) 1 at 43. Let me iterate that it is an established principle that an appellate Court will not substitute its own views with those of the trial Court, where the trial Court unquestionably evaluated the evidence and justifiably appraised the facts. See NGILLARI vs. NICON (1998) 8 NWLR (PT 560) 1 and AGBABIAKA vs. SAIBU (1998) 10 NWLR (PT 571) 534 or (1998) LPELR (222) 1 at 19-20. Where the findings of the Court have been judicially and judiciously arrived at flowing from the evidence before it, an appellate Court has no jurisdiction to interfere. See OWIE vs. IGHIWI (2005) 5 NWLR (PT 917) 184 at 217-218.
I have insightfully considered the evidence on the cold printed records and I am not in any doubt whatsoever that the lower Court properly evaluated the evidence and ascribed probative value thereto in arriving at the inexorable conclusion that the Appellants did not prove their case. The lower Court made the proper findings of facts, which findings are not perverse. In the circumstances, this Court cannot interfere merely to substitute its own views for the views of the lower Court. See ADEBAYO vs. A-G OGUN STATE (2008) ALL FWLR (PT 412) 1193 at 1197 and 1211, SAGAY vs. SAJERE (2000) 4 SC (PT 1) 187 and ODIBA vs. MUEMUE (1999) 10 NWLR (PT 622) 174. The Appellants have failed to show that the lower Court arrived at the wrong conclusion on the facts: BAMGBOYE vs. OLAREWAJU (supra) and EHOLOR vs. OSAYANDE (supra).
The concatenation of the totality of the foregoing is that all the issues for determination have been resolved against the Appellants. This signifies and signposts that the appeal is bereft of any merit whatsoever. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The judgment of the lower Court, Coram Judice: Onafowokan, J., delivered on 11th April 2017 is hereby affirmed. The parties are to bear their respective costs of this appeal.
ABBA BELLO MOHAMMED, J.C.A.: I had a preview of the lead judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Ugochukwu Anthony Ogakwu, JCA. I am in complete agreement with the reasoning and conclusions made therein.
In adversarial civil litigations, pleadings are the foundational structures of the parties’ cases. Pleadings not only depict the nature of, but also set out the factual parameters of the parties’ respective cases. It is from those pleadings that the issues in controversy between the parties are discerned. In emphasizing the importance and binding nature of the pleadings upon the parties and the Court, the Supreme Court, per Oguntade, JSC, held in UBN PLC & ANOR v AYODARE & SONS (NIG) LTD & ANOR (2007) LPELR-3391(SC), that:
Parties are bound by their pleadings. Similarly, the Court is also bound by the pleadings: See Oke-Bola v. Molake (1975) 12 SC 61 at 62, where this Court per Sowemimo JSC. (as he then was) emphasized the importance of Courts allowing themselves only to be governed and/or directed by the issues raised through the parties’ pleadings. Pleadings must be seen as the engine room of litigation in cases fought in the High Court on the basis of pleading.
Indeed, in YAHAYA & ANOR v DANKWANBO & ORS (2016) LPELR-48364(SC), the Apex Court, per Ogunbiyi, JSC held at pages 70 – 71, para. F, that:
The party’s pleading is the most important requirement of his case before the Court. It must be well explicit, clear and specific to the point. It must also be consistent bearing in mind that the outcome of an appeal is a product of the original pleading as set out at the trial Court. It is one and the same case from its inception right through the various stages of the appeal and does not change.
As claimants before the trial Court, the Appellants herein, who had in paragraph 24 (a) and (b) of their Amended Statement of Claim sought for a declaratory relief that their title to the land and appurtenances situate, lying and being along Sagamu/Benin Way, J4 Junction, Ijebu Local Government Area, Ogun State of Nigeria is still valid and subsisting and for an order declaring as null and void, unconstitutional and of no effect whatsoever the White Paper issued by the Defendant, divesting the 1st Appellant of its right and interest in the said land, have pleaded no material facts challenging the Judicial Commission of Inquiry and the resultant White Paper which could support the grant of the declaratory reliefs which they sought.
As rightly observed by the trial Court at page 566 of the Record of Appeal, the facts upon which reliefs are predicated must be averred in the pleadings: Reiterating this principle, Tobi, JCA (as he then was) held in MOJEKWU v MOJEKWU (1997) LPELR-13777(CA), at page 41, para. B, that:
It is my understanding of the law that for a Court of law to grant a relief, there must be averments in the statement of claim supporting it. In my view, a relief which is not supported by averments in the statement of claim goes to no issue and a trial judge is entitled to ignore such relief, and I so hold.
See also: OSAGIEDE v UWABOR (2014) LPELR-22664(CA), per Lokulo-Sodipe, JCA at pages 34 – 35, para. F.
Having failed to aver facts that could justify the principal reliefs which they sought before the lower Court; I do not see how the Appellants could succeed in upturning the decision of the trial Court in this appeal. As stated by the Apex Court in YAHAYA & ANOR v DANKWANBO & ORS (supra), an appeal is a product of the original pleading as set out at the trial Court.
It is for the above and the more elaborate reasons ably espoused in the lead judgment that I also find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, I also dismiss same and affirm the judgment of the trial Court delivered on the 11th of April, 2017.
ABDUL-AZEEZ WAZIRI, J.C.A.: I have been privileged before today, of reading in draft the Judgment just delivered by my learned brother, UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, JCA, with which I am in total agreement that this appeal lacks merit and ought to be dismissed. My learned brother has quite admirably resolved all the salient issues identified for the determination of this appeal. I equally abide by the consequential order made in the Lead Judgment on the issue of “cost in cause”.
Appearances:
A. A. Ogunba, Esq. with him Mrs. A. O. Olowolafe For Appellant(s)
Mrs. O. T. Ogundele, Chief State Counsel, Ministry of Justice, Ogun State For Respondent(s)
