AKOGUN ABAYOMI OLUMIDE & ANOR v. MR. AMOS OLA AREMU & ANOR (2019)

AKOGUN ABAYOMI OLUMIDE & ANOR v. MR. AMOS OLA AREMU & ANOR

(2019)LCN/13804(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Friday, the 18th day of October, 2019

CA/EK/83/2018

RATIO

ADMISSION OF FACT NEED NO FURTHER PROOF

It is trite law that what is admitted by both parties does not require further proof by evidence, whether oral or documentary. OLAGUNYI VS OYENIRAN (1996) 6 NWLR Pt. 453 Pg. 127, AKPAN VS UMOH (1999) 11 NWLR Pt. 627 Pg. 349, AGBANELO VS UBN LTD (2000) 4 SC Pt.1 Pg. 233.
An admission of facts by a party against his interest is admissible in evidence and need no further proof.
AWOTE VS OWODUNNI No. 2 (1987) 2 NWLR Pt. 57 Pg. 367.
In the present appeal, the Appellants admitted in the trial Court that the 1st Respondent purchased the land in issue. He paid the purchase price and was issued a receipt. A Survey Plan was prepared for him which the Appellants acknowledged in their affidavit.?
What is admitted need not be proved. Clearly in this appeal, the onus of proof of a fact in issue is on the party who will lose if such fact is not proved. However, where the party against who the fact is sought to be proved has admitted it, like in this appeal the Appellants, the requirement to discharge the onus of proof abates.
IBADAN LGPC LTD VS OKUNADE (2005) 3 NWLR Pt. 911 Pg. 45. PER UZO IFEYINWA NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A.

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE BY THE COURT

I must quickly reiterate that in the evaluation of evidence, the trial Courts are guided by the following principles namely-
(1) Whether the evidence is admissible;
(2) Whether the evidence is relevant
(3) Whether the evidence is relevant
(4) Whether the evidence is conclusive and
(5) Whether the evidence is more probable than that given by the other party. MOGAJI VS ODOFIN (1978) 4 SC Pg. 91. I dare say that the learned trial Judge appraised and evaluated all the relevant evidence placed before it by the parties. It is to be noted that in civil cases, the Court decides the case on the balance of probabilities or preponderance of evidence. This is done when a trial Court puts on an imaginary scale the totality of evidence adduced by the parties before the Court, before coming to a decision as to which evidence it accepts and which it rejects. The Court must put the evidence adduced by the plaintiff on one side of the scale and that by the defendant on the other side of the scale and weigh them together. The Court will then see which is heavier not by the number of witnesses called by each party, but by the quality or probative value of the testimony of those witnesses.
ADEBAYO VS ADUSEI (2004) 4 NWLR Pt. 862 Pg. 44; OLUSILE VS MAIDUGURI MELMO; COUNCIL (2004) 4 NWLR Pt. 863 Pg. 290; FAGBENRO VS AROBADI (2006) 7 NWLR Pt. 978 Pg. 174.
I believe and hold that the trial Court evaluated the material evidence placed before it creditably. The trial Court was therefore right in holding that the 1st Respondent proved his claims against the Appellants. The 1st Respondent was entitled to judgment if the trial Court believes and accepts his evidence and if such evidence supports his case BELLO VS ARUWA (1999) 8 NWLR Pt. 615 Pg. 454. PER UZO IFEYINWA NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A.

JUSTICES

UZO IFEYINWA NDUKWE-ANYANWU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

FATIMA OMORO AKINBAMI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

PAUL OBI ELECHI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

1. AKOGUN ABAYOMI OLUMIDE
2. OLAREWAJU JOHN AJAYI Appellant(s)

AND

1. MR. AMOS OLA AREMU
2. UNKNOWN PERSONS Respondent(s)

UZO IFEYINWA NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Ekiti State Coram A. L. Ogunmoye delivered on the 18th day of January, 2018. Appellants were aggrieved about the outcome of the said judgment hence this appeal.

The brief facts of this appeal is that, the 1st Respondent bought two plots of land from the Oluloda family of Ado-Ekiti.

The 1st & 2nd Respondents are the secretary and family head respectively as at the time the 1st Respondent purchased the two plots in issue. The two plots of land are situate in the Oluloda layout Igidu farm, Ikere Road, Ado-Ekiti.

The two plots of land is bounded by the Redeemed Christian Church of God, City of Refuge Parish to the North of the property. While the road leading to Prayer Centre Church of God is to west of the property belonging to the 1st Respondent. A road is to the South of the property while the property belonging to Mrs. Alowosile Funmilayo Comfort is to the East of the property

The 1st Respondent purchased the two plots vide receipt Exhibit 2 for Six Hundred Thousand Naira (N600,000.00). The two

plots were surveyed by a licensed Surveyor Mr. O. Akeju dated 25th day of January, 2013 and was admitted in evidence as Exhibit 3.

The 1st Respondent gave evidence that he was put into possession by the Appellants? family Surveyor.

The 1st Respondent only sued the Appellants when his enjoyment of his two plots was threatened by thugs.

At the trial, the 1st Respondent as claimant testified for himself and called one witness. The 1st & 2nd Appellants testified and called only one witness. Altogether 5 exhibits were admitted in evidence. At the end of the trial, the learned trial Judge granted the 1st Respondent the reliefs sought and ordered as follows:
(a) It is hereby declared that the claimant is the rightful owner of the land covered by a survey plan drawn by licensed surveyor O. Akeju and dated 25th January, 2013 with Registration Number AKT/527/EK/029A/2012 and bounded by Pillar Numbers: SC/EKE/3101L, SC/EKE/3102L, SC/EKE/3103L and SC/EKE/3106L which situate at Oniloda layout, igidu Farm Road, Ado-Ekiti.
(b) It is hereby declared that the action of the first and second defendants amounts to a trespass to the land covered by

a survey plan drawn by licensed surveyor, O. Akeju and dated 25th January, 2013 with Registration Number AKT/527/EK/029A/2012 and bounded by Pillar Number: SC/EKE/3101L, SC/EKE/3102L, SC/EKE/3103L and SC/EKE/3106L which situate at Oniloda layout, igidu Farm, Ikere Road, Ado-Ekiti and belongs to the claimant.
(c) AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants, their heirs, successors-in-title, agents, assignees or anybody or group of people acting on their behalf from further having anything to do with the land is hereby given.
(d) General damages in the sum of N200,000.00 is hereby awarded the claimant and against the 1st and 2nd defendants? action.

The Appellants were dissatisfied with the judgment and filed their notice and grounds of appeal on 22nd day of February, 2018.

In accordance with the Rules of this Court, the Appellants filed his Appellants? brief on 9th day of May, 2019 and deemed properly filed and served on 14th day of May, 2019. In Response, the 1st Respondent filed his brief on 3rd day of June, 2019. The Appellants filed a reply brief on 20th day of June, 2019.

The Appellants articulated two (2) issues for determination by this Court as follows:
ISSUE ONE
With regard to the available evidence on records, whether the learned Trial Judge has calmly and dispassionately evaluated the entire evidence placed before him in the course of the proceedings of the trial Court. (Grounds one, two and three)
ISSUE TWO
Whether or not the failure and refusal of the first respondent to file a reply to the new issues raised by the appellants in their statement of defence before the trial Court, would not amount to an admission of the facts and evidence given in respect thereto. (Ground four).

The 1st Respondent also articulated two (2) issues for determination as follows:
?Issue 1- Whether or not the Lower Court was right to grant the prayers of the 1st Respondent considering the available evidence on record.
Issue 2 ? Whether or not the failure and refusal of the Counsel to the Appellants to affix his seal and stamp on the Appellants? brief of argument makes the Appellants? brief of argument properly signed or filed.”

The Appellants? issues as well as the 1st

Respondent?s 2nd issue would be utilized in the determination of this appeal.

ISSUE 1
The Appellants agreed that the 1st Respondent actually purchased two plots from the Oluloda family. However, the Appellants contended before the trial Court that the area of the land so allocated to the 1st Respondent by the Oluloda family surveyor in person Surveyor Egbodofo was wrongly allocated because the entire area had been earmarked and had earlier been allocated to Mama Idowu Olobi a long time ago. Also that it was her children that came to take possession of this land.

Counsel submitted that DW2 is one of the children and his evidence was not evaluated by the trial Court.
?
Counsel submitted that contrary to the holding of the trial Judge, the 1st & 2nd Appellants did not sell the two plots in issue to a 3rd party. The Appellants also admitted the two plots were wrongly allocated to the 1st Respondent and that his own plots were still available. The Appellants? counsel submitted that they never admitted to the correctness of the boundaries of the land wrongly allocated and occupied by the 1st Respondent. Counsel also submitted that

the boundary neighbours of the two plots allocated to the 1st Appellant were not correct as the family did not sell any land to those boundary neighbours. The counsel further submitted that the trial Judge did not properly appraise and evaluate the evidence placed before the Court in reaching its conclusions. See ISHOLA & 4 ORS VS FOLORUNSHO (2010) 6 SCNJ pg. 29; OYEWOLE VS AKANDE (2009) 7 SCNJ 225, KABIRIKIM VS EMEFOR (2009) 8 SCM Pg. 29.

Counsel urged the Court to Re-evaluate the evidence adduced in the Court below in line with Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act. See VERNER VS FUT, YOLA (2017) LPELR 43001. See also OBI VS INEC (2007) 1 NWLR Pt. 1046 Pg. 465; AGBAKOBA VS INEC (2008) 18 NWLR Pt. 1119 Pg. 489.

ISSUE 2
The Learned counsel to the Appellants submitted that the 1st Respondent failed to answer or reply to the statement of defence of the Appellants even though they acknowledged it was out of time. Counsel opined that the failure of the 1st Respondent to reply to fresh issues amounted to the admission of the facts stated in the said statement of defence and evidence given in respect thereof. Counsel referred the Court to

MAKANJUOLA VS AJILORE (2001) 12 NWLR Pt. 727 Pg. 416 where the Court of Appeal held-
?Where averments in pleadings are not denied or controverted by the claimant who does not file a reply to a statement of defence, he is deemed to have admitted the assertions in those paragraphs of the defense and the defendants need not adduce evidence in proof of them. The averments in the paragraphs were not denied or controverted by the claimant who did not file a reply to the statement of defence. Consequently, he is deemed to have admitted the assertions in those paragraphs of the defence (under the rules of pleadings) and the defendants are not obliged to adduce evidence in proof of them.”
IYERE VS BFFM LTD (2001) FWLR Pt. 37 Pg. 1166 where it was also held that-
?failure of the plaintiff to answer to a crucial issue in the statement of defence will amount to an admission in law such as where contributory negligence or forfeiture of insurance claim as a result of conduct of the plaintiff.”

Counsel further argued that it was the duty of the 1st Respondent to respond to fresh issues raised in the statement of defence.

See EGESIMBA VS ONUZURUIKE (2002) 15 NWLR Pt. 791 Pg. 466 where Tobi JSC held as follows.
?The proper function of a reply is to raise, in answer to the defence, any matter which must be specifically pleaded, which makes the defence not maintainable or which otherwise might take the defence by surprise.?
OMMAN VS EKPE (2000) 1 NWLR Pt. 641 Pg. 365. DAGGASH VS BULAMA (2004)14 NWLR Pt. 892 Pg. 144. Counsel finally urged the Court to resolve these two issues in favour of the Appellant and allow this appeal.

On his own part, the 1st Respondent submitted that the 1st Appellant was the Secretary of Oluloda family whilst the 2nd Appellant was the head of family. Both were present at the negotiations and sale of the two plots of Land in issue to the 1st Respondent.

The 1st Respondent purchased two plots of land lying, being and situate at Oluloda layout, Igidu farm, Ikere Road, Ado-Ekiti from the first and second Appellants as Representatives of Oluloda family on 13th April, 2012. The two plots of land is bounded with the Redeemed Christian Church of God, City of Refuge Parish to the North of the property while the Road leading to

Prayer Centre Church of God is to the west of the property belonging to the 1st Respondent. A road is to South of the property while the property belonging to Mrs. Alowosile Funmilayo Comfort is to the East of the property.

The 1st and 2nd Appellants deposed to an affidavit evidencing this sale. This affidavit was tendered and marked as Exhibit 1.

The two plots were purchased for Six Hundred Thousand Naira N600,000.00 vide purchase Receipt Exhibit 2. A Survey Plan Exhibit 3 was drawn by a licensed Surveyor O. Akeju and dated 25th day of January, 2013. Also the Appellants gave the 1st Respondent a go ahead to seek means of applying for registration of the land by the affidavit and survey plan.

Counsel submitted that the 1st Respondent established his purchase of the two plots. The 1st Respondent also proved his claim for declarations by traditional evidence. This claim was buttress by documents that supported his claims to entitle him to the declarations he sought. MEADOWS VS FABANWO (2014) 8 WRN Pg. 86.

Counsel further submitted that the learned trial judge evaluated all the evidence placed before him in reaching his decision. The learned

trial judge never believed the Dw1-Dw3 that the land was earlier allocated to Mama Idowu Olobi.

Counsel also submitted that there was no law mandating a party to reply. It is not necessary to reply if the purpose is to deny the allegation in the statement of defence.

A later decision on this is PHILIPS V EBA ODAN COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL COMPANY (2012) LPELR-9718 (SC) PER NGWUTA, JSC, where the Supreme Court held that-
“In absence of a reply to the amended Statement of Defence generally the allegation in the statement of Claim are implicitly denied or there is an implied joinder of issues; in which case pleadings close with the statement of defence. A reply is not necessary if its purpose is to deny the allegations in the statement of defence. See ?OBOT V. CBN (1993) 9 SC NJ 268 AT 284; SPASCO V. ALRAINE (1995) 9 SCNJ 288 AT 305 AND ISHOLA V. SOCIETE GENERALE BANK (1997) 2 SCNJ 1 AT 16
Counsel urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the 1st Respondent.

ISSUE 2
The first Respondent counsel also contended that the Appellants? counsel did not affix his seal and stamp on the Appellants? brief. The Appellants?

counsel only attached evidence of payment on 24th day of April, 2019 for Nigeria Bar Association Stamp and Seal. In SENATOR BELLO SARAKI YAKI (RTD) & ANOR V SENATOR ATIKU ABUBAKAR BAGUDU & 2 ORS (2016) EJSC Volume 29, page 1@ 19 PARAGRAPHS D ? H and page 20 PARAGRAPH D ?E , Nwali Sylvester Ngwuta JSC held as follows, ?Rule 10:
(1) A lawyer acting in his capacity as a legal practitioner, legal officer or adviser of any governmental department or Ministry or any Corporation, shall not sign or file a legal document unless there is affixed on any such document a seal and stamp approved by the Nigerian Bar Association.
(2) For the purpose of this rule ?legal documents? shall include pleadings affidavit depositions, applications, instruments, agreements, deeds letters, memoranda, reports, legal opinion or any similar documents.
(3) If without complying with the requirements of this rule, a lawyer signs or files any legal documents as defined in Sub-rule 2 of this Rule, and in any of the capacities mentioned in Sub-rule(2), the document so signed or filed shall be deemed not to have been properly signed or filed.”

Counsel urged the Court not to take cognizance of the said Appellants? brief and to dismiss this appeal.

In Reply, the Appellants? counsel said that the second issue by the 1st Respondent is incompetent in that no leave was sought to raise it. OJIGU VS OJIGU (2010) 9 NWLR Pg. 1198 Pg 1.

Counsel submitted that he has applied and paid for the stamp and seal which is not always ready at the point of payment. Counsel exhibited all his receipts for the payments and urged the Court to discountenance the 1st Respondent?s argument on this issue and allow the appeal.

RESOLUTION
This is a land dispute between the Appellants and the 1st Respondent. The Appellants complained that the learned trial Judge did not evaluate the evidence placed before it in reaching his decisions.

Both parties agreed in evidence viva voce and by the documentary evidence tendered in Court that-
(1) The 1st Respondent purchased the two plots of land negotiated and sold by the 1st & 2nd Appellants. These two were entitled to sell family land which they sold to the 1st Respondent.
(2) A receipt to the purchased price

Exhibit 2 was issued to the 1st Respondent.
(3) The Appellants? deposed to an affidavit Exhibit 1. The paragraphs of the affidavit would be recapped hereunder for ease of reference.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF EKITI STATE OF NIGERIA
IN THE ADO-EKITI JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT ADO-EKITI
AFFIDAVIT AS TO TRANSFER OF LAND OWNERSHIP
We, AKOGUN ABAYOMI OLUMIDE and OLAREWAJU JOHN AJAYI both Secretary and the Head of family, Males, Christians, Yoruba, Nigeria, citizen of Oniloda Family Compound, Irona Market, Irona Street, Ado Ekiti, do hereby swear and declare as follows:
1. That we are the deponent to this affidavit.
2. That our family is the legitimate owner of parcels of land lying being and situated at Igidu Farmland, Off Ikere Road, Ado-Ekiti, Ekiti State
3. That the family has sold and allocated 2 plots out of the aforesaid parcel of land to one Mr. Amos Ola Aremu of Covenant Avenue, Ikere Road, Ado-Ekiti.
4. That the said Mr. Amos Ola Aremu of Covenant Avenue, Ikere Road, Ado-Ekiti has caused the 2 plots to be prepared by O. Akeju, Registration No. AKT/527/EK/029A/2012 and

bounded by pillar Nos: SC/EKE3101L, SC/EKE3102L, SC/EKE3103L and SC/EKE3106l respectively.
5. That we now want the Ministry of Land and Housing of Ekiti State to take note of the facts that Mr. Amos Ola Aremu of Covenant Avenue, Ikere Road, Ado-Ekiti is now the bonafide owner and to issue him all the necessary papers in respect of the land.
6. That this affidavit is now needed for record and official purposes.
7. That we swear to this affidavit in good faith believing same to be true and correct in accordance with Statutory declaration Laws of Ekiti State of Nigeria 2011.

Head of Family Secretary
SWORN TO AT THE HIGH COURT REGISTRY,
ADO-EKITI THIS . DAY OF ?.., 2013.
BEFORE ME:

COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS

?Paragraph 4 of the affidavit stated the name of the surveyor who prepared the survey plan

the registered no of the Survey plan, the date and the beacon numbers respectively. All these tallied with the evidence of the 1st Respondent and the Appellants. The Appellants by this affidavit helped to prove that the 1st Respondent did purchase the two plots and he was given possession authenticated by the affidavit and the receipt Exhibit 2 and the Survey Plan Exhibit 3.

a fact in issue is on the party who will lose if such fact is not proved. However, where the party against who the fact is sought to be proved has admitted it, like in this appeal the Appellants, the requirement to discharge the onus of proof abates.
IBADAN LGPC LTD VS OKUNADE (2005) 3 NWLR Pt. 911 Pg. 45.

The learned Appellants counsel argued that the learned trial Judge did not evaluate the evidence placed before him in reaching his conclusions. I must quickly reiterate that in the evaluation of evidence, the trial Courts are guided by the following principles namely-
(1) Whether the evidence is admissible;
(2) Whether the evidence is relevant
(3) Whether the evidence is relevant
(4) Whether the evidence is conclusive and
(5) Whether the evidence is more probable than that given by the other party. MOGAJI VS ODOFIN (1978) 4 SC Pg. 91.

I dare say that the learned trial Judge appraised and evaluated all the relevant evidence placed before it by the parties. It is to be noted that in civil cases, the Court decides the case on the balance of probabilities or preponderance of evidence. This is done when a trial Court puts

on an imaginary scale the totality of evidence adduced by the parties before the Court, before coming to a decision as to which evidence it accepts and which it rejects. The Court must put the evidence adduced by the plaintiff on one side of the scale and that by the defendant on the other side of the scale and weigh them together. The Court will then see which is heavier not by the number of witnesses called by each party, but by the quality or probative value of the testimony of those witnesses.
ADEBAYO VS ADUSEI (2004) 4 NWLR Pt. 862 Pg. 44; OLUSILE VS MAIDUGURI MELMO; COUNCIL (2004) 4 NWLR Pt. 863 Pg. 290; FAGBENRO VS AROBADI (2006) 7 NWLR Pt. 978 Pg. 174.
I believe and hold that the trial Court evaluated the material evidence placed before it creditably. The trial Court was therefore right in holding that the 1st Respondent proved his claims against the Appellants. The 1st Respondent was entitled to judgment if the trial Court believes and accepts his evidence and if such evidence supports his case BELLO VS ARUWA (1999) 8 NWLR Pt. 615 Pg. 454.

The Learned counsel to the Appellants in his brief argued that the 1st Respondent ought to have

filed a reply to the fresh issue canvassed by the Appellants in their statement of defence.
I must straight away state that the claimant/1st Respondent in the Court below does not necessarily have to reply to the statement of defence. ODU-ALABA VS OLOGUNEBI (2015) LPELR 23041. Where this Court followed the Supreme Court cases of UNITY BANK PLC VS BOUARI (2008)2-3 SC Pt. 11 Pg. 1 and held-
?A reply is necessary where a statement of defence raises a fresh issue that was not raised or anticipated by the statement of claim. See also EGESIMBA V ONUZURUIKE (2002) 15 NWLR Pt. 791 Pg. 466 where Ayoola JSC held.?
When a Court is faced with the contention that the failure of the plaintiff to file a reply should affect the result of the case, the proper approach is first, to enquire whether a reply was essential and secondly, if it was, whether evidence of facts which should have been pleaded in the reply had been adduced and admitted. It is a wrong approach straight way, as the court below did, to hold that failure to file a reply to a statement of defence not accompanied by a counter claim amounted to an admission.?
To my mind there

were no new facts in the statement of defence that needed a reply. The parties were ad idem in the facts of this case. The only new twist to the case of the parties was that, the 1st Respondent was allocated the two plots wrongly. Also that the land allocated was part of the land already allocated previously to one Mama Idowu Olobi. There was no further particulars provided by the Appellants that required reply. It appears to be an afterthought by the Appellants after deposing to the affidavit Exhibit 1 which placed all the particulars of the land in dispute in proper perspective with the necessary particulars. In OBOT VS CBN (1993) 8 NWLR Pt. 310 PG 140 the Supreme Court held inter allia.
?In general, it is not necessary for a plaintiff to file a reply if his only intention in doing so is to deny any allegations that the defendant may have made in the statement of defence.? Per Tobi JSC. AKEREDOLU VS AKINREMI (1989) LPELR 328. From the above it therefore, shows that, the Plaintiff/1st Respondent was not under any obligation to file a reply where there was nothing to deny in the statement of defence. OBOT VS CBN (1993) LPELR 2192.

The 1st Respondent drew the Court?s attention to the fact that the Appellants? brief does not have the stamp and seal of the counsel. The learned counsel to the Appellants though he did not affix his stamp and seal but has shown evidence of payment for the stamp and seal to the Nigeria Bar Association. It is a known fact that these stamps are not always ready on payment of the necessary fees. It should be taken that he has the stamp and seal to operate as a legal practitioner as envisaged by the law. I therefore hold that the Appellant?s brief is proper before the Court.

The two issues articulated by Appellants have been resolved against them. This appeal is unmeritorious. It is dismissed. The judgment of the trial Court is upheld in terms of all the orders contained therein.
Cost to the 1st Respondent is assessed at One Hundred Thousand Naira only (N100,000,00).

FATIMA OMORO AKINBAMI, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading in draft the lead judgment just delivered by my learned brother, UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, JCA.

The appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Ekiti State delivered on 18th

January, 2018 by Hon. Justice A. L. Ogunmoye.

The parties agree that the 1st Respondent purchased the two plots of land from the 1st and 2nd Appellants who had authority to sell family land.

At the conclusion of the trial and address of learned counsel, the learned trial judge granted the 1st Respondent the reliefs sought and ordered as follows:
(A) lt is hereby declared that the claimant is the rightful owner of the land covered by a survey plan drawn by licensed surveyor O. Akeju and dated 25th January, 2013 with Registration Number AKT/527/EK/029A/2012 and bounded by Pillar Numbers: SC/EKE/3101L, SC/EKE/3102L/SC/EKE/3103L and SC/EKE/3106L which situate at Oniloda layout, lgidu Farm Road, Ado- Ekiti.
(B) It is hereby declared that the action of the first and second defendants amounts to a trespass to the land covered by a survey plan drawn by licensed Surveyor O. Akeju and dated 25th January, 2013 with Registration Number AKT/527/EK/029A/2012 and bounded by Pillar Number: SC/ EKE/3103L, SC/ EKE/3102L/SC/EKE/3103L and SC/EKE 3106L which situate at Oniloda Layout, lgidu Farm, lkere Road, Ado- Ekiti and belongs to the claimant.

(C) AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants, their heirs, successors-in-title, agents, assignees or anybody or group of people acting on their behalf from further having to do with the land is hereby given.
(D) General damages in the sum of N200,000.00 is hereby awarded to the claimant and against the 1st and 2nd defendant?s action.

Being dissatisfied with the judgment Appellants have appealed to this Court vide their Notice of Appeal filed on the 22nd day of February, 2018.

The fulcrum of this appeal in my view is the evaluation of evidence proferred before the trial Court.

My learned brother Hon Justice Ndukwe-Anyanwu, JCA has in my view dealt extensively with all the issues for determination in this appeal. I agree with his reasoning and conclusions reached thereat, that the Trial Court was right in holding that the 1st Respondent proved his claims against the Appellants.

I also agree that this appeal is unmeritorious, consequently l dismiss same. The judgment of the trial Court is upheld in terms of all the orders contained therein.
I abide by all consequential orders including orders on costs.

PAUL OBI ELECHI, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading in draft, the lead judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Uzo I. Ndukwe-Anyanwu, JCA in this matter.

I cannot but agree with his reasoning and conclusion that the appeal has no merit and should be dismissed.
?
I also abide with the consequential order of One Hundred Thousand Naira against the Appellant.
Appeal dismissed.

Appearances:

Rotimi Adabembe, Esq. with Helen Olanipekun (Miss) and Kehinde Bayode, Esq.For Appellant(s)

Oluwafemi Alonge, Esq. for the 1st RespondentsFor Respondent(s)

Appearances

Rotimi Adabembe, Esq. with Helen Olanipekun (Miss) and Kehinde Bayode, Esq.For Appellant

AND

Oluwafemi Alonge, Esq. for the 1st RespondentsFor Respondent