AUGUSTINE DUNG v. RAILWAY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED
(2018)LCN/12452(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 14th day of June, 2018
CA/J/65/2014
RATIO
EVIDENCE: WHERE EVIDENCE IS NOT PROPERLY ADMITTED
“Even when a document was properly admitted in evidence and most useful in the determination of the case, once there is no admissible oral evidence to link up the document with the purport for which it was tendered and relate same to the case; then the document will not add value to the case of the party because the document though may speak for itself after oral evidence has led to its proper admission in proceedings, but before then, oral evidence must be called to speak to it at the initial stage of the proceedings to avoid the ailment of dumping the same on the Court. EJIOGU V. ONYEAGUOCHA (2006) ALL FWLR (PT. 317) 467; ARABAMBI V. ADVANCE BEV. IND. LTD. (2006) ALL FWLR (PT. 295) 581; LUMATRON NIGERIA LTD. & ANOR. V. FIRST CITY MONUMENT BANK PLC. (2016) LPELR-CA/L/860/2013.” PER UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM, J.C.A.
LAND LAW: WAYS TO ESTABLISH TITLE TO LAND
“It is now trite that five modes are utilised in establishing title to land and in this, the case of IDUNDUN V. OKUMAGBA (1976) 0 – 10 SC has been very outstanding and those methods are:
1. Traditional evidence.
2. Production of documents of title which are duly authenticated.
3. Acts of selling, leasing, renting out all or part of the land or farming on it or on a portion thereof.
4. Acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land, and
5. Proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances rendering it probable that the owner of such connected or adjacent land would, in addition be the owner of the land in dispute. SOGUNRO & ORS V. YEKU & ORS (2017) LPELR 41905 (SC); FALEYE & ORS. V. DADA & ORS. (2016) LPELR 40297 (SC). Proof of any one of the ways listed above is sufficient to grant a declaration of title to land. ORIANZI V. AG RIVERS STATE & ORS. (2017) LPELR-41737 (SC).” PER UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM, J.C.A.
LAND LAW: WHERE A PARTY USES TRADITIONAL HISTORY TO PROVE TITLE TO LAND
“It is trite that a party seeking for a declaration of title to land, who relies on traditional history as proof of his root of title, must plead same sufficiently. He must state in his pleading the original founder of the land, how he founded the land, the particulars of the intervening owners through whom he claims. Where a party has not given sufficient information in his pleadings as regards the origin or ownership of the land and the line of succession to himself, he has just laid foundation for the failure of his claim.ANYAFULU & ORS. V. MEKA & ORS. (2014) LPELR ? 22336 (SC); HYACINTH ANYANWU V. ROBERT ACHILIKE MBARA & ANOR. (1992) 5 SCNJ 90; IDUNDUN V. OKUMAGBA (1976) 9 – 10 SC 224; ATANDA V. AJANI (1989) 3 NWLR (PT. III) 511.” PER UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM, J.C.A.
Before Their Lordships
ADAMU JAUROJustice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAMJustice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRUJustice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
AUGUSTINE DUNGAppellant(s)
AND
RAILWAY PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT CO. LTDRespondent(s)
UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment):
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Plateau State sitting in its original Jurisdiction at Bukuru, Jos Judicial Division delivered on 25th November, 2011 in SUIT NO: PLD/J101/2006 by P. L. LOT, J. wherein the learned trial Judge entered judgment for the Respondent who was the Defendant.
On 22nd May, 2006 and 16th February, 2007 respectively the Plaintiff sought and obtained the leave of the trial Court to sue in a representative capacity and to amend the name of the Defendant from RAILWAY PROPERTY COMPANY to RAILWAY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY LTD; also to amend the Writ of Summons and the Statement of Claim wherein the Appellant claimed:
1. A declaration that the Plaintiff is the owner of Customary Right of Occupancy over all the entire land situate and lying immediately behind the ‘B’ Division of the Nigeria Police Force Bukuru.
2. A perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, its privies or agents from trespassing or otherwise interfering with the land in dispute.
3. N1,000,000.00 general damages.
4. Cost of this action.
The case of the Appellant is that he is the owner of the Customary Right of Occupancy of all the land situate and lying immediately behind the ‘B’ Division of the Nigerian Police Force Bukuru which measures 2,965 hectares. It was contended that the Appellant inherited the farm land from his father by name Davou Lung who also inherited same from his own father Pam Kadung together with his brother Chung Kareng who were the only male children of the first settler by name Kadong. It was also averred that some parts of the land was sold by the Plaintiff’s father to the following persons: ECWA GOOD NEWS CHURCH; AMBASSADOR CINEMA BUKURU; THE ‘B’ DIVISION OF THE NIGERIA POLICE STATION BUKURU JOS SOUTH LGC.; MR. BITRUS DEDEIN; who are all in possession till date.
The Appellant also claimed that he sued and got judgment against the Nigerian Railway Corporation at the Federal High Court Jos, after which judgment, the Respondent started laying claim of ownership to the land in dispute by using force to harass and chase the Appellant out of the land. Owing to the attitude of the Respondent’s agents, the Appellant made report against them at the Police Station ‘B’ Division Bukuru who advised them to go to Court, whereupon they instituted this action.
The Respondent on its own part denied the Appellant’s claim and contended in their statement of defence and counter claim that the Appellant has no title over the land in dispute because by vesting order the Nigerian Railway Corporation the parent corporation of the Respondent since 1956 has the Statutory Title of all lands 7.5ft on either side of Railway line including where the Appellant claims and over the years the Respondent has been using the land for overriding public purposes.
That the Respondent which is a subsidiary of Nigeria Railway Corporation manages vast areas of Railway lands, landed properties throughout Nigeria including the disputed land. It was contended that the Respondent was not a party in the case at the Federal High Court which judgment was obtained ex parte and was later set aside. They denied harassing or chasing or using force on the Appellant or any one and urged the Court to dismiss the claim. In the counter claim of the Respondent, it was contended that the Appellant was trespassing into its land and alienating the same to third parties. The Respondent in its counter claim sought declaration that the Respondent being the subsidiary of the Nigerian Railway Corporation the rights and privileges and appurtenance is vested on it to the exclusion of the Appellant; perpetual injunction restraining the Appellant, himself, his heirs, servants, agents or representatives from trespassing or continuing the act of trespass on the disputed land situate and lying behind ?B? Division of the Nigeria Police Force Bukuru Jos Plateau State and damages of N1,000,000.00 for trespass for unlawful entry and alienation to third parties without the consent of the Respondent. Following the death of the Plaintiff (Ibrahim Bot) he was substituted with Augustine Dung.
At the close of evidence and addresses of counsel to the parties, the learned trial Judge entered judgment for the Respondent. The Appellant being dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court has now appealed to this Court. Relevant processes were filed and exchanged for the appeal to become ripe for hearing.
On 20th March, 2018 while G. G. Achi Esq. with R. N. Wuyep & S. K. Mancha appeared for the for Appellant, T. J. J. Danjuma Esq. with C. N. Bitrus appeared for Respondent. Mr. Achi adopted and relied on the Appellant’s Brief deemed properly filed and served on 16th February, 2017, and Reply Brief deemed properly filed and served on 20th March, 2018. He urged the Court to allow the appeal. In response Mr. Danjuma adopted and relied on the Respondent’s Brief filed 23rd January, 2018 and deemed properly filed and served the same day in urging the Court to dismiss the appeal.
In the Appellant’s brief prepared by Mr. G.G. Achi, the following 3 issues were distilled for the determination of the appeal.
1. Whether the learned Judge of the trial High Court was right in holding that the Defendant (now the Respondent) has better title to the land than the Plaintiff (now the Appellant) in spite of the overwhelming evidence led by the Appellant.
2. Whether in view of the importance of Exhibit A which was a file that contains detailed information and documents regarding the disputed land, the trial High Court was right to have expunged it from its records on the ground that no oral evidence was led on same.
3. Whether a document relevant to a case tendered and admitted in evidence as in this case exhibit A needs further evidence on same before the Court can give probative value to it.
On their part, in the Respondent’s brief Mr. Tolu Omatsola raised the following 3 issues for determination.
i) Whether the Learned trial Judge of the Lower Court was right in holding that the Defendant has a better title to the land than the Plaintiff now Appellant.
ii) Whether the lower Court was right to have expunged Exhibit ‘A’ from its records on the ground that no oral evidence was led on same.
iii) Whether the Lower Court was right in holding that Exhibit ‘A’ needs further evidence before the Court can give probative value to it.?
The issues formulated by the counsel to the parties say the same thing. I shall adopt the issues as formulated by the Respondent’s counsel to determine the appeal as the same is more elegantly phrased. I will resolve issue 1 separately and issues 2 and 3 together.
ARGUMENTS ON ISSUE 1
Mr. Achi submitted on who the onus of proof rests in civil actions. He relied on: EWO V. ANI (2004) 17 NSCQR PAGE 36 AT 56. He noted the position of the law that title to land can be proved not only by traditional history but by four other means which he listed. He cited: ALLI V. ALESINLOYE (2000) FWLR (PT. 15) PAGE 2610; IDUNDUN V. OKUMAGBA (1976) 9 – 10 SC 227.
The learned counsel submitted that at the trial Court the Appellant proved his title by traditional history. He referred to the evidence of PW 1 at page 93 lines 14 to 22 and page 94 lines 1 to 7 of the record. He also referred the Court to the evidence of PW2 at page 95 lines 1 to 19 of the record. He contended that the evidence of the Appellant on traditional history and the land that shares boundaries with the land in dispute was not controverted. He submitted that traditional evidence which is not contradicted and found by the Court to be cogent can support a claim for declaration of title. EWO V. ANI (SUPRA) AT PAGE 57. He argued that the trial Court should have relied on the above referred evidence to enter judgment for the Appellant. He relied on: Section 131 of then Evidence Act 2011 as amended; AFRIBANK NIGERIA LIMTED V. MOSLAD INTERPRISES LIMITED (2008) ALL FWLR (PT. 421) PAGES 877; NITEL PLC V. AYU (2008) ALL FWLR PT. 411 page 904.
Mr. Achi contended that assuming without conceding that the land was vested on Nigerian Railway Corporation, the evidence on record suggests that the Appellant is the owner of the disputed land excluding the rail lines and 7 feet both ways from it. He also argued that from the evidence of the Appellant at the trial Court the size of land they claim is 2,965 hectares as contained in the site plan. Again, he argued that from the evidence of the traditional ruler that the government did not write him about the alleged acquisition and the fact that there is no evidence of compensation, it means that the land in dispute if truly acquired was not acquired as provided by the law in which case the vesting was invalid. He relied on: PROVOST V. DR. EDUN (2006) NSCQR PAGE 37 AT 395; L.S.D.P.C. V. BANIRE (1992) 5 NWLR (PT.234) AT 620.
He urged the Court to resolve the issue in favour of the Appellant.
In response, Omatsola argued that the trial Court based its decision on the evidence adduced by both parties. He referred to the contention of the Respondent at the trial Court that the land in dispute was vested on the Nigerian Railway Property Management Corporation in 1955 by virtue of Section 35 (1) of the Nigerian Railway Corporation Act, a fact that he alleged was never controverted under cross- examination by the Appellants. On the other hand, it was his contention that the case of the Appellant was that the land in dispute which he failed to give a proper description of, was the subject of family inheritance. The learned counsel submitted that this position of the Appellant was rightly discountenanced by the trial Court when it held in its judgment that the pleadings of the plaintiff were bereft of the requisite particulars for grant of title based on traditional history. He referred to page 125 of the record.
On whether compensation was paid, the learned counsel for the Respondent argued that compensation was not made an issue at the trial Court. He submitted that the onus was on the Appellant to prove upon the preponderance of evidence that he was entitled to the declaration of title to the land in dispute. He cited: MOGAJI V. CADBURY NIG. LTD. (1985) 2 NWLR (PT. 7) 393; ADEOSUN V. JIBESIN (2001) 11 NWLR (PT. 724) 290 AT 306; ODOFIN V. AYOOLA (1984) 11 SC 72 AND OKAFOR V. IDIGO (1984) 1 SCNLR 481.
He further submitted that the law is well established and settled that where a person relies on traditional history as his root of title, the onus is on him to prove the root of title, names and history of his ancestors. He should lead evidence to establish same without any missing link. He relied on: ANYANWU V. MBARA (1992) 5 NWLR (PT. 242) 386, AKINLOYE V. EYIOLA (1968) 2 NMLR 92, OWOADE V. OMITOLA (1988) 2 NWLR (PT. 77) 413. He also contended that the Evidence of PW1 at page 113 lines 16-18 is to the effect that the land in dispute was used for cultivation and at a point some parts were sold, but the Appellant failed to adduce evidence that the land in dispute was sold, he also failed to call those owning intervening land to testify or tender any documents to buttress that fact.
He submitted that this failure is fatal to his claim for title to land in dispute based on traditional evidence. Mr. Omatsola equally submitted that the Appellant failed to show with clarity and certainty before the trial Court the boundaries of the land claimed. He relied on: IORDYE V. IHYAMBE (1993) 3 NWLR (PT. 280) 197 AT 207, OKE V. EKE (1982) 12 SC 218 AT 246.
The learned counsel for the Respondent argued that the case of the Appellant when juxtaposed with that of the Respondent shows a heavier preponderance of evidence in favour of the Respondent. He noted the aspects of the Respondents that made the justice scale tilt in the Respondent’s favour and urged the Court to resolve the issue in favour of the Respondent.
RESOLUTION OF ISSUE 1
It is now trite that five modes are utilised in establishing title to land and in this, the case of IDUNDUN V. OKUMAGBA (1976) 0 – 10 SC has been very outstanding and those methods are:
1. Traditional evidence.
2. Production of documents of title which are duly authenticated.
3. Acts of selling, leasing, renting out all or part of the land or farming on it or on a portion thereof.
4. Acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land, and
5. Proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances rendering it probable that the owner of such connected or adjacent land would, in addition be the owner of the land in dispute. SOGUNRO & ORS V. YEKU & ORS (2017) LPELR 41905 (SC); FALEYE & ORS. V. DADA & ORS. (2016) LPELR 40297 (SC). Proof of any one of the ways listed above is sufficient to grant a declaration of title to land. ORIANZI V. AG RIVERS STATE & ORS. (2017) LPELR-41737 (SC).
It is trite that a party seeking for a declaration of title to land, who relies on traditional history as proof of his root of title, must plead same sufficiently. He must state in his pleading the original founder of the land, how he founded the land, the particulars of the intervening owners through whom he claims. Where a party has not given sufficient information in his pleadings as regards the origin or ownership of the land and the line of succession to himself, he has just laid foundation for the failure of his claim.ANYAFULU & ORS. V. MEKA & ORS. (2014) LPELR ? 22336 (SC); HYACINTH ANYANWU V. ROBERT ACHILIKE MBARA & ANOR. (1992) 5 SCNJ 90; IDUNDUN V. OKUMAGBA (1976) 9 – 10 SC 224; ATANDA V. AJANI (1989) 3 NWLR (PT. III) 511.
In the herein case the Appellant pleaded ownership of the land in dispute by inheritance in the following manner: ‘At the trial the Plaintiff shall contend that he inherited the farm land from his own father by name Davou Lung who had also inherited same from his own father by name Pam Kadung together with his own brother Chung Kareng both of whom were the only male children of the first settler on the land in dispute by name Kadong.’ Paragraph 4 of the Appellant’s amended statement of claim.
The Appellant did not in his averment in the pleading attempt to state the original founder of the land and how the land was founded whether by conquest, deforestation, outright gift etc. He merely stated that his grand father Pam Kadung first settled on the land without averring how he so came to settle on the land in dispute. This does not satisfy the requirement of the law in proof of title by traditional history. I hold that the trial Court was right to so hold.
Again at paragraphs 5 to 8 of the amended statement of claim the Appellant pleaded ownership by possession. In OLUKOYA V ASHIRU (2006) ALL FWLR (PT. 322) 1479; the apex Court gave the third method of proving ownership of land as follows:- “By acts of selling, leasing, renting out all or part of the land or farming on it or on a portion thereof.” The Appellant herein outside listing in the pleadings the names of those he purportedly sold portions of the land to, never called any of them to give evidence of such sell, lease or renting of the land in dispute. Also the Appellant did not call any one to give evidence of sharing boundary with him in the land he has been in possession as his act of ownership. Again I agree with the trial Court that the Appellant did not proof possession as act of ownership of the disputed land to warrant the award of the disputed land in his favour. Also he did not proof ownership by acts of selling, leasing, renting out all or part of the land or farming on it or on a portion thereof. The Appellant also failed to tender in evidence the judgment he allegedly obtained against Nigerian Railway Corporation at the Federal High Court. All these were fatal to the claim of the Appellant.
Rather on its part, the Respondent by the evidence of DW1 and DW2, sustained that the property in issue belonged to Nigerian Railway Corporation by virtue of the vesting order of 1956 which vested the land in dispute to the Corporation. At page 105 lines 1 to 11, DW2 stated that the land was acquired Pursuant to the Nigerian Railway Corporation (Vesting of Land) Order 1956. The DW2 also said :The land was acquired essentially for the purpose of laying Rail Tracks, building or erection of Station, Stationary building such as Ware Houses, Running Shade, Offices and Residential Quarters, etc.
The lands are used for granting of leases and licenses to attract revenue for the Railway Corporation and there is a master vesting plan. He described the Master Vesting Plan N. R. 9 running from Kafanchan to Jos. He identified the Master Vesting plan at page 30 of a book. The above evidence was in no way contradicted. The issue of whether compensation was paid or not was not made an issue at the trial Court, it cannot therefore be considered in this appeal. There is also no evidence before the Court of the revocation of the Vested Order. In the light of the above I hold the view that the Respondent established its title in view of the evidence adduced by it and met the requirements of law by the production of Exhibits ‘B, ‘B1’ & ‘B2’; and adducing evidence to link up the exhibits with its case at the trial Court. The weight of the Respondent’s evidence on the imaginary scale was heavier than that of the Appellant.
Accordingly, I hold that the learned trial Judge was right when he said the Appellant failed to proof title to the land in dispute and adjudged that the Respondent has a better title. I resolve issue 1 in favour of the Respondent.
SUBMISSIONS ON ISSUES 2 AND 3
Mr. Achi for the Appellant submitted that these issues should be answered in the negative. He noted that Exhibit A is file number 63463/S.9/22 with C. of O. No 9452 brought by an official witness on subpoena. He referred to page 98 lines 1 to 15 and page 99 lines 4 to 8 of the record. He further referred to Sections 15(a) and 15(b) of the Evidence Act, 2011 as amended for what the Court should take into account in assessing evidence before it. He equally relied on Section 218 of the Evidence Act 2011 on when a person is summoned to produce a document in a proceeding and; Section 219 of the Evidence Act (supra) on the status of a person just subpoenaed to produce document in a proceeding.
Upon the above provisions of the law referred to, the learned counsel for the Appellant argued that Exhibit “A” which was produced by an official witness from the Plateau State Ministry of Lands, Survey and Town Planning by subpoena; and Counsel in the matter at the trial by consent tendered it from the bar and same was admitted in evidence and so marked, that Exhibit “A” does not need oral evidence to support it before the trial Court would accord probative value and consider same in its decision. He referred to the holding of the learned trial Judge at page 126 lines 26 and 27; and page 127 lines 1 to 3 of the record. The learned counsel also invited the Court to the pleadings at page 20 of the record particularly paragraph 3 of the Amended statement of claim lines 4 to 7; page 43 of the record paragraph 6 lines 9 to 15 and paragraph 8 from lines 23 to 33 both of which is part of the pleadings as contained in the Reply to Defendant’s Statement of Defence and counter claim. Furthermore, he referred to counsel’s address at page 70 wherein he reiterated the importance of Exhibit ‘A’.
Mr. Achi brought emphasis to the above pages of the record to bring home the point that Exhibit ‘A’ formed part of the pleading of the Appellant at the trial Court, and as such the learned trial Judge was in error when he expunged it (Exhibit A) from the record.
He submitted that documentary evidence in most cases do not need further prove by way of oral evidence since they are regarded as the best evidence that can be relied upon and cannot be contradicted by oral evidence in most instances as it speaks for itself. He cited: AKINBISADE V. STATE (2006) 27 NSCQR PAGE 743; BUNGE V. GOVERNOR OF RIVERS STATE (2006)27 NSCQR PAGE 46.
The learned counsel finally urged the Court to resolve the issues in favour of the Appellant and to allow the appeal.
Mr. Omatsola learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the answer to the two issues is in overwhelming affirmative and urged the Court to so hold. He referred to the amended statement of claim of the Appellant to contend that Exhibit A was not pleaded by the Appellant, that what was pleaded was a site plan. He therefore submitted that Exhibit A is at variance with the Appellant?s pleadings and goes to no issue.
He cited: MOJEED SUARA YUSUF V. MADAM IDIATU ADEGOKE & ANOR. (2007) 4 SCNJ 77 AT 87 TO 88; EZE V. ATASIE (2000) 10 NWLR (PT. 676) 470; EGBUE V. ARAKA (1988) 3 NWLR (PT. 84) 598.
On the issue that Exhibit A was admitted by the trial Court without objection, it was the learned counsel for the Respondent’s submission that admission of a document is one thing and the weight to be attached to it another. He maintained that since no evidence was adduced in support of Exhibit A by the Appellant the trial Court was right to expunge and discountenance the said Exhibit. He urged the Court to resolve issues 2 and 3 in favour of the Respondent; dismiss the appeal and uphold the decision of the trial Court.
RESOLUTION OF ISSUES 2 AND 3
The genesis of these issues is the holding of the learned trial Judge at page 126 last paragraph and page 127 lines 1 to 8 that:
“I have said earlier in this judgment that exhibit “A” which is file no. C of O 9454 tendered by the plaintiff from the Bar without tying same to any evidence or pleading, since the exhibit is at variance with the pleadings and evidence it will not have value and it is hereby discountenanced because it is contrary to the issue joined and therefore goes to no issue worthy of consideration. See the case of: ALLI V. ALESINLOYE (2000) FWLR (PT. 15) PAGE 2610. Exhibit A
At page 126 lines 12 to 17 of the record, the trial Court held:
“Exhibit ‘A’ was tendered by the Plaintiff’s counsel from the Bar. The Exhibit is a file with C. of O. 9434 with the name of Nigerian Railway Corporation. The Plaintiff only dumped the file and no more, there is no reference made on the file, moreso, this file was not pleaded and there is no evidence led on the file Exhibit ‘A’. This file is of no use to the Plaintiff’s claim. The file is hereby expunged.”
Based on the above holding, the Appellant to show that Exhibit ‘A’ formed part of his pleadings, referred the Court to the under reproduced paragraphs of his pleadings as follows:
Page 20 of the record paragraph 3 of the Amended statement of claim lines 4 to 7 reads thus:
“The plaintiff hereby pleads the site plan of the land as drawn by official of the Plateau State Bureau for Lands Survey and Town Planning, Jos.”
Page 43 of the record paragraph 6 lines 9 to 15 of the Reply to Defendant’s Statement of Defence and counter claim reads thus:
“It shall be the contention of the Plaintiff that the only portion of the land in dispute given to the Nigerian Railway Corporation the parent body to the Defendant is the land on which the Rail line passed as indicated in the C of 0 with number 9454. Notice to produce the said C of O is hereby given to the Defendant.”
Page 43 of the record paragraph 8 from lines 23 to 33 of the Reply to Defendant’s Statement of Defence and Counter Claim reads thus:
8. The plaintiff hereby pleads the Nigerian Railway Corporation’s (the parent company of the Defendant) application for the Rail Line which passes through the land in dispute, the C. of O. with number 9454 and all other documents connected to the land in dispute as kept by the Plateau State Ministry of Land, Survey and Town Planning – the successor to ministry of land and survey, Northern Region of Nigeria. Notice to produce is hereby given to the Defendant to produce at the hearing of this suit all the above mentioned documents.”
From paragraph 8 at page 43 of the record, the Appellant clearly pleaded Exhibit ‘A’ and gave the Respondent notice to produce same leading to the production and tendering of Exhibit ‘A’ from the Bar. The learned trial Judge was therefore in error when he held that the Appellant did not plead Exhibit ‘A’.
On the issue that no evidence was led in relation to Exhibit ‘A’. The Appellant’s counsel rightly submitted that documentary evidence where admissible is the best form of evidence. AKINBISADE V. STATE (2006) 27 NSCQR PAGE 743; BUNGE V. GOVERNOR OF RIVERS STATE (2006) 27 NSCQR PAGE 46; SKYE BANK PLC & ANOR. V. AKINPELU (2010) LPELR-SC.38/2003; INTERDRILL (NIG) LTD. & ANOR. V. UBA PLC (2017) LPELR-SC.4/2007. This notwithstanding, the learned counsel for the Appellant misconceived the issue herein. The learned trial Judge did not hold that Exhibit ‘A’ needed oral evidence to prove it or to support it, the learned trial Judge expunged Exhibit ‘A’ for two reasons. The first which I have held he was in error is that the said exhibit was not pleaded.
The second is that no evidence was led to the Exhibit ‘A’ with the claim of the Appellant. This is not the same as saying that the Appellant needed to lead evidence in further prove of Exhibit ‘A’ as contended by the Appellant? counsel.
The position of the law is that it is the duty of a party who has tendered a document in Court in support of his case to specifically through oral evidence link or tie up the document to the purpose for which it was tendered in evidence for such document to be evaluated and ascribed probative value by the Court. It is not the duty of the Court to investigate documents placed before it to ascertain the purpose for which it was tendered in evidence. A party who did not lead evidence to tie up document he has tendered before a Court is deemed not to have talked to the document but merely dumped the document on the Court and in which case the document would not be accorded probative value. It is immaterial the way and manner the document was admitted in evidence.
Even when a document was properly admitted in evidence and most useful in the determination of the case, once there is no admissible oral evidence to link up the document with the purport for which it was tendered and relate same to the case; then the document will not add value to the case of the party because the document though may speak for itself after oral evidence has led to its proper admission in proceedings, but before then, oral evidence must be called to speak to it at the initial stage of the proceedings to avoid the ailment of dumping the same on the Court. EJIOGU V. ONYEAGUOCHA (2006) ALL FWLR (PT. 317) 467; ARABAMBI V. ADVANCE BEV. IND. LTD. (2006) ALL FWLR (PT. 295) 581; LUMATRON NIGERIA LTD. & ANOR. V. FIRST CITY MONUMENT BANK PLC. (2016) LPELR-CA/L/860/2013.
The learned counsel for the Appellant was under erroneous impression that by virtue of Sections 218 and 219 of the Evidence Act, 2011 as amended, since Exhibit ‘A’ was tendered by an official witness who was merely subpoenaed to tender the same without giving oral evidence, oral evidence was not required for any reason with regard to placing Exhibit ‘A’ properly before the Court for it to accrue probative value. The issue as I have explained above is that of tying Exhibit ‘A’ to the purpose for which it relates to the claim of the Appellant in which case Sections 218 and 219 of the Evidence Act are not relevant to this case. Actually, there was no oral evidence led by the Appellant to link Exhibit ‘A’ with the purpose for which it was tendered. No evidence to tie Exhibit A to the case and pleadings of the Appellant. Accordingly, I hold that the learned trial Judge was right when he expunged Exhibit ‘A’ for lack of evidence from the Appellant to tie the same to his claim by adducing oral evidence that will make clear the purpose of the exhibit by linking it up to the facts placed before the Court.
I therefore resolve issues 2 and 3 in favour of the Respondent.
Conclusively, Appeal herein lacks merits, the same fails and is dismissed. I affirm the Judgment of the High Court of Plateau State delivered on 25th November, 2011 in SUIT NO: PLD/J101/2006 by P. L. LOT, J.
No Order as to costs.
ADAMU JAURO, J.C.A.: I have had the opportunity of reading in advance the lead judgment just delivered by my learned brother, UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM, JCA. I am in agreement with the reasoning and conclusion reached, that the appeal is lacking in merit and should be dismissed. I adopt the said judgment as mine and hereby dismiss the appeal,
I subscribe to consequential orders made in the lead judgment.
HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading the lead judgment delivered by my learned brother, Uchechukwu Onyemenam, JCA. His Lordship has considered and resolved the issues in contention in this appeal. I agree with the reasoning and abide the conclusions reached therein.
Appearances:
G. G. Achi with him, R. N. Wuyep & S. K. ManchaFor Appellant(s)
T. J. J. Danjuma with him, C. N. BitrusFor Respondent(s)
