EGEDE v. TUBURU & ANOR (2020)

EGEDE v. TUBURU & ANOR

(2020)LCN/14863(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(BENIN JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Friday, December 04, 2020

CA/B/358/2014

RATIO

LAND LAW: WHEN WILL THE IDENTITY OF LAND IN DISPUTE BE VALIDLY MADE AN ISSUE IN A CLAIM FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE

The law is that if a claimant pleads and serves a survey plan showing the boundaries and features of the land in dispute, a defendant disputing the boundaries or features of the land must make a clear and specific traverse, as a mere general traverse is not sufficient. See Omoregie v. Idugienmwanye (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt.41) 60 and Nwadike v. Ibekwe (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 67) 718. PER ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.C.A.
LAND LAW: BURDEN OF PROOF IN A CLAIM FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND

The law has long been settled that, in a claim for declaration of title to land, the claimant must succeed on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defendant’s defence. See J.M. Kodilinye v. Mbanefo Odu (1935) 2 WACA 336 at 337, per Webber, C.J; where it was held that:
“The onus lies on the plaintiff/respondent to satisfy the Court that he is entitled on the evidence brought by him to a declaration of title. The plaintiff/respondent in this case must rely on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defendant’s case.”
See also Atilade v. Atilade (1968) 1 All NLR 27; O.K.O. Magaji v. Cadbury Nigeria Ltd. (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 7) 393 and Mr. Moses Benjamin & 2 Ors. v. Mr. Adokiye Kalio & Anor. (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1641) 38. PER ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.C.A.

LAND LAW: WAYS OF PROVING TITLE TO LAND

It is trite that a Claimant may establish title to land by one or more of five methods. These are:
1. By traditional history.
2. By production of title documents which are duly authenticated.
3. By acts of selling, leasing and renting out all or part of the land or farming on it or on a portion of it.
4. By acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land and
5. By proof 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.
The locus classicus on the point is the case of Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) 1 NWLR 200. It is equally the position legally that whichever of the 5 ways a Claimant relies on, in proof of his title he is obliged to adduce clear, cogent and satisfactory evidence in the direction. According to Oputa JSC in Idundun’s case (supra):

“What is to be noted and reemphasised is that the party claiming title to land is not bound to plead and prove more than one root of title to succeed. If he relies on more than one root that is merely to make assurance double sure. He does that ab abundate cantella.”
It is also the Law that the onus is static and does not shift nor can the Claimant rely on the weakness of the defence’s case in proof of his case unless it supports his case. See Lawson v. Ajibulu (1997) 6 NWLR (Part 507) page 14 at page 30 where Ogundare JSC held inter alia as follows:-
“…A long line of cases beginning with Kodilinye v. Odu (1935) 2 WACA 336 has laid it down that the onus of proof in a claim for declaration of title lies on the plaintiff. Except in few cases such as where the defendant claims exclusive ownership of family land…. The onus never shifts. And to succeed, the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his own case and not the weakness of the defence… The Plaintiff must prove his title by clear, emphatic, satisfactory and cogent evidence…”
There are a host of cases in support of this principle of Law. PER ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.C.A.

Before Our Lordships:

Moore Aseimo Abraham Adumein Justice of the Court of Appeal

Biobele Abraham Georgewill Justice of the Court of Appeal

Gabriel Omoniyi Kolawole Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

WILLIAM EGEDE APPELANT(S)

And

MRS. AZUKA TUBURU (Suing By Her Lawful Attorney: (1) MRS. FAITH DEBEKEME (2) MR. TEEKEE I. DEBEKEME) 2. MRS. DORA NOYEZE UKPONMWAN RESPONDENT(S)

MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The 1st respondent was the claimant in Suit No. B/460/1993, instituted by way of a writ of summons in the High Court of Edo State, holden at Benin City. The 2nd respondent and the appellant were the 1st defendant and 2nd defendant, respectively, in the lower Court.

In her 4th further amended statement of claim, the 1st respondent claimed against the 2nd respondent and the appellant, jointly and severally, as follows:
“(a) A declaration that the claimant is the person entitled to the Statutory Right of Occupancy to that piece or parcel of land measuring 3449 326 square metres lying and situate at Princess Ighiwiyisi Eweka’s Estate, precisely at Odigie Avenue, off Gapiona Street, Benin City which piece or parcel of land is more particularly described and delineated in Survey Plan No. ER4162 dated 5th May, 1994 filed along with the Statement of Claim in this action.
(b) A declaration that the sale or transfer of the land in dispute by the 1st defendant to the 2nd defendant during the pendency of this suit, i.e. Suit No. B/460/93

is unlawful, invalid, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
(c) N100,000.00 damages against the defendants in that the defendant broke into and entered upon the said piece or parcel of land and started constructing Boy’s quarters and security post on the said land without the permission and/or consent of the claimant.
(d) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents and privies from further acts of trespass onto the said piece or parcel of land or continuing the construction or building of any structures on the said piece or parcel of land.”

In her 2nd further amended statement of defence, the 2nd respondent denied the 1st respondent’s claim and counterclaimed against the 1st respondent as follows:
“(i) A declaration that the 1st defendant is entitled to the Statutory Right of Occupancy to that piece or parcel of land situate and lying at Princess Ighiwiyisi Eweka Estate at Odigie Avenue, Off Gapiona Street, G.R.A., Benin City which piece or parcel of land will be more particularly described or delineated in a Survey Plan to be filed by 1st defendant in this Suit.

(ii) N100,000.00 (One Hundred Thousand Naira) only damages.
(iii) An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff, his servants, agents and/or privies from entering into or doing anything whatsoever in the said land in dispute.”

The appellant filed an amended statement of defence of 20 paragraphs, in which he denied the 1st respondent’s claim.
During the hearing, the 1st respondent called 6 witnesses while the 2nd respondent and the appellant called 4 witnesses and 3 witnesses, respectively.

In a reserved judgment delivered on 06/12/2013, the trial Court, per Efe Ikponmwonba, J; held that the 1st respondent proved her case on the balance of probabilities and entered judgment in her favour. The appellant, being dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court, appealed to this Court vide a notice of appeal filed on 10/02/2014.

In his brief filed on 23/04/2018 and deemed as filed on 16/11/2020, learned counsel for the appellant raised the following issues for determination:
“1. Was the lower Court’s finding that the 1st respondent discharged the primary duty of proving clearly and unequivocally the precise

area to which his claim relates in the action for declaration of title to land based on proper appraisal and evaluation of the oral documentary evidence advanced by the 1st respondent (Grounds one and two of the Grounds of Appeal).
(2) Did the lower Court mis-apply the burden of proof in respect to a party seeking a declaratory relief of title to land having regards to the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties in the circumstances of the case? Grounds three and four of the Grounds of Appeal).”

The 1st respondent’s brief was filed on 20/03/2020 but it was deemed as filed on 16/11/2020. In it, learned counsel for the 1st respondent formulated the following issues for resolution:
“1. Was the lower Court’s finding that the 1st respondent discharged the primary duty of proving clearly and unequivocally the precise area to which his claim relates in the action for declaration of title to land based on proper appraisal and evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence advanced by the 1st respondent.
2. Whether the lower Court mis-applied the burden of proof in respect to a party seeking a

declaratory relief of title to land having regards to the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties in the circumstances of the case.”

The 2nd respondent did not file any brief and the appeal was heard on the appellant’s brief and the 1st respondent’s brief alone.

The issues identified by the parties are basically the same and they can be recouched to be as follows:
1. Whether or not the identity of the land in dispute was proved by the 1st respondent.
2. Whether or not the trial Court wrongly applied the burden of proof in respect of the 1st respondent’s declaratory claim.

ISSUE 1
The appellant’s argument is that “the issue of identity of the land in dispute was a live issue before the lower Court” but that “the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence advanced by the 1st respondent in respect of the identity of the land in dispute are inconsistent and contradictory”. Learned counsel then analyzed the oral evidence of the 1st respondent’s witnesses and the exhibits tendered by them and argued that the finding of the trial Court, that it did

not “see that there is any doubt as to the identity of the land in dispute”, did not “take into consideration that Exhibit “F” (the Oba’s Approval) tendered by the 1st Attorney of the 1st Respondent, Mrs. Faith Debekeme, who testified as P.W.3 clearly depicted that the land in dispute allegedly granted to the 1st respondent’s predecessor-in-title, though irregularly shaped, had eight dimensional sides, namely 228.1 ft by 350.1ft by 37.3ft by 100.5ft by 128.7ft by 60.8ft by 201.2ft, while Exhibit “A” produced by Surveyor Gabriel Eriyamoemu has six dimensional sides.”

Learned counsel submitted that:
“…..had the lower Court properly appraised and evaluated the said Exhibit “A” and Exhibit “F”, the lower Court would have come to the inescapable conclusion that the Exhibit “F” and Exhibit “A” were irreconcilably referencing different parcels of land. The 2nd respondent and the appellant made copious references to the said inconsistencies in their written addresses before the lower Court, yet the lower Court restrained

itself from examining the said submission.”

In support of the above submission, counsel referred the Court to the case of Anthony Ibhafidon v. Sunday Igbinosun (2001) LPELR – 1396 (SC).
The summary of the appellant’s arguments on this issue is that the identity of the land in dispute was not proved with certainty.

In response, learned counsel for the 1st respondent contended that:
“…..all through the length and breadth of the appellant’s pleading of twenty (20) paragraphs as contained in his amended statement of defence at pages 31 to 35 of the record he never pleaded any contrary fact nor challenged the identity, location and dimension of the land claimed by the 1st respondent neither did himself and his witnesses also give evidence challenging the dimension and location of the disputed land in their oral testimony which is an admission of the identity of the land asserted and proved by the 1st respondent.”

It was further submitted that “the issue of identity of the land in dispute was only raised and argued by the appellant for the first time….in his final written

address”.

In any case, learned counsel argued that the 1st respondent proved by the evidence of PW1, PW3 and PW4 the location of the land in dispute and that “the survey plan, exhibit H has a clear picture of the boundaries, dimension and features of the land in dispute which oral testimony cannot add to or subtract from”.

It should be noted that at the hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant specifically referred to paragraph 19 of the appellant’s amended statement of defence to support his argument that the identity of the land in dispute was made an issue.

In paragraph 4 of her 4th further amended statement of claim, the 1st respondent pleaded as follows:
“The claimant has at all times material to this action been the owner in possession of the piece or parcel of land lying and situate in Princess Ighiwiyisi Eweka Estate, Off Ogba Road, Benin City in the Oredo Local Government Area, particulars of which are shown in:-
(a) Ighiwiyisi Estate was formerly the Rubber Plantation of Princess Ighiwiyisi Eweka, the Senior Sister of Oba Akenzua II. When Ward ‘A’ Plot Allotment

Committee was being created in or about 1960, for the purposes of recommending to the Oba of Benin the allotment of vacant plots to applicants, the Oba of Benin excised from Ward ‘A’, Ighiwiyisi Estate.
(b) In accordance with the Bini Native Laws and Custom, Princess Ighiwiyisi Eweka, the Senior Sister of Oba Akenzua II, got a direct grant of all that piece or parcel of land from the Oba of Benin and got the whole area inspected by Ward ‘A’ and laid out into plots by the predecessor of the B.D.P.A. The Estate is now known and called Ighiwiyisi Estate as directed by the Oba of Benin.
(c) The application for building plot submitted by the claimant’s vendor, Chief Vincent Agenmonmeh, to Princess Ighiwiyisi Eweka, Princess Court, Ogba Road, Benin City subsequently received the Oba’s approval in due form in accordance with the Bini Native Laws and Custom.
(d) On receipt of the application from the Vendor of the claimant, Chief V. Agenmonmeh, the representative and lawful Attorney of Princess Ighiwiyisi Eweka took the said Chief V. Agenmonmeh to the Estate. He was shown the plot subsequently transferred

to Chief V. Agenmonmeh and also delineated and demarcated with seven locations. The claimant shall, at the trial, rely on BDPA Layout design of Princess Ighiwiyisi Eweka Estate wherein the aforesaid piece of land was numbered as Plot 18. However, this layout design was never translated on the ground. In other words, there was no survey of the whole area showing plots, their size and co-ordinates of the various plots that were designed. Claimant however, knew her plot.
(e) Chief V. Agenmonmeh’s application was duly approved by the lawful Attorney of Princess Ighiwiyisi Eweka and processed to the Oba of Benin, His Royal Highness, Oba Akenzua II, who subsequently approved the application on the date stated therein. Chief Agenmonmeh took effective possession of the piece of land in dispute under Bini Native Laws and Custom. He paid for the rubber trees on the land in dispute to the owner of the estate and uprooted same. At that time, there were no streets in the area apart from proposed roads.
(f) By constant judicial usage, the custom of plot Allotment in Benin City has come to be regarded and treated as notorious custom which

should be judicially noticed under Section 15(2) of the Evidence Act and applicable without further proof in the case in addition to the custom and procedure pleaded in this case. The claimant shall rely on the Benin Customary Procedure of Plot Allotment pleaded in this case, as well, at the trial.”

The appellant, in his amended statement of defence, did not deny the 1st respondent’s averments in paragraph 4 of her 4th further amended statement of claim. In fact, the appellant pleaded in paragraph 1 of his said amended statement of defence inter alia, that:
“……the legal title to the parcel of land measuring approximately 200 feet by 300 feet lying and situate at Princess Ighiwiyisi Eweka Estate at Odigie Avenue, Off Gapiona Street, Benin City, vest in the 1st defendant in accordance with the Land Use Act 1978.”

Now in paragraph 19 of his amended statement of defence, the appellant pleaded as follows:
“19. The 2nd defendant state that if the plaintiff and her predecessors in title own any land in the said Princess Ighiwiyisi Eweka Estate it is not the parcel of land described in

paragraph 1 and 2 above.”

The averment in paragraph 19 of the appellant’s amended statement of claim, heavily relied on by learned counsel, does not show that the appellant had no knowledge of the identity and location of the land claimed by the 1st respondent.

It is now settled law that before the identity of land in dispute can be validly made an issue, in a claim for declaration of title, the party complaining must have first denied knowledge of the location of the land in his pleading. See Adenike v. Olude (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt. 799) 413 and Ogunyanwo v. Oluwole (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1167) 391.
The 2nd respondent and the appellant, who were the defendants in the lower Court, did not, in their respective pleadings, deny knowledge of the location of the land claimed by the 1st respondent. They merely averred that it is the 2nd respondent who is entitled to the statutory right of occupancy.
In this case, the 1st respondent also pleaded and served Survey Plan No. ER 4162 dated 5th May, 1994 to identify the land in dispute. The law is that if a claimant pleads and serves a survey plan showing the boundaries and features of

the land in dispute, a defendant disputing the boundaries or features of the land must make a clear and specific traverse, as a mere general traverse is not sufficient. See Omoregie v. Idugienmwanye (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt.41) 60 and Nwadike v. Ibekwe (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 67) 718.
The appellant neither made a general nor a specific traverse to the 1st respondent’s pleading in respect of the land in dispute. The appellant’s averment in paragraph 19 of his amended statement of claim is merely to the effect that the 1st respondent is not entitled to the land in dispute and it is not that the identity of the land is unknown to him or is in dispute.

In view of all the foregoing reasons, I resolve this issue in favour of the 1st respondent and against the appellant.

ISSUE 2
Whether or not the trial Court wrongly applied the burden of proof in respect of the 1st respondent’s declaratory claim.
It was contended that the approach by the trial Court that the burden on the 1st respondent was proof of some prima facie evidence “was inconsistent with the practice of Courts that a claimant for a declaratory relief must succeed on the

strength of his case and a defendant without a counterclaim was under no obligation to prove title”.

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the evidence led by the 1st respondent, especially “the evidence of PW4 was unsatisfactory in respect of compliance with the mode of acquisition under Bini Native Law and Custom” and that the evidence of PW4 was at variance with the 1st respondent’s pleadings.

In urging the Court to resolve this issue in his favour, the appellant submitted that the lower Court “was in error to have held that by (sic) P.W.4 complied with Bini Native Law and Custom by simply filling the exhibit “F”, the lower Court ought to have examined the totality of the case advanced by the 1st respondent in determining the issue”.

Learned counsel cited and relied on some decided cases to buttress the various arguments set out in his brief. The cases include:
1.S. S. GMBH v. T. D. Ind. Ltd. (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1206) 589, on the principle that evidence elicited from a witness, in respect of material facts not covered by the pleadings goes to no issue;

Gyang Dung v. Chung Chollom (1993) 1 NWLR (Pt. 220) 738, that a defendant, who has no counterclaim, does not have to prove any claim and it is enough if he successfully resists the plaintiff’s claim, for example by discrediting the plaintiff’s evidence; and
3. Archibong v. Ita (1953) 14 WACA 520 – that the onus is the plaintiff throughout to prove his title.

The response of the learned counsel for the 1st respondent is that the trial Court based its judgment “on sound application of the law to the evidence adduced before the Court which requires a claimant to prove his declaration sought on the strength of his case”. Counsel relied on the cases of Osasona v. Ajayi (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 549) 1065 and Dakolo v. Rewane-Dakolo (2011) All FWLR (Pt. 592) 1610 and argued that it is the duty of a trial Court, which heard the witnesses testify, to make a proper appraisal of the evidence.

Webber, C.J; where it was held that:
“The onus lies on the plaintiff/respondent to satisfy the Court that he is entitled on the evidence brought by him to a declaration of title. The plaintiff/respondent in this case must rely on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defendant’s case.”
See also Atilade v. Atilade (1968) 1 All NLR 27; O.K.O. Magaji v. Cadbury Nigeria Ltd. (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 7) 393 and Mr. Moses Benjamin & 2 Ors. v. Mr. Adokiye Kalio & Anor. (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1641) 38.

As an immediate answer to the appellant’s allegation, assertion or complaint that the trial Court “mis-applied the burden of proof” in this case, I wish to say that trial Court was evidently abreast with the requirements of the law in respect of the burden of proof in a claim for a declaration of title to land. The trial Court, per Hon. Justice Efe Ikponmwonba, admirably acquitted himself of this rather very frivolous allegation by elaborately stating in his judgment as follows:
“In Magaji & Ors. v. Cadbury Nig. Ltd. (1985) NWLR (Part 7) page 393 Obaseki JSC held as follows:
It is

the duty of the party who seeks a declaration of title to land to establish and prove his claim by credible evidence… The onus lies on the Claimant to satisfy the Court that he is entitled on the evidence brought by him…”
It is trite that a Claimant may establish title to land by one or more of five methods. These are:
1. By traditional history.
2. By production of title documents which are duly authenticated.
3. By acts of selling, leasing and renting out all or part of the land or farming on it or on a portion of it.
4. By acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land and
5. By proof 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.
The locus classicus on the point is the case of Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) 1 NWLR 200. It is equally the position legally that whichever of the 5 ways a Claimant relies on, in proof of his title he is obliged to adduce clear, cogent and satisfactory evidence in the direction. According to Oputa JSC in Idundun’s case (supra):<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”>

</br<>

support of this principle of Law.
It is trite law that in a land case indeed in civil claims, it is the duty of the Claimant to prove his claim by credible evidence without having to rely on the weakness of the defence. See Adeleke vs. Iyanda (2001) 6 SC 1831 and Magaji & Ors. vs. Cadbury Nig. Ltd (supra) page 393.”

I had earlier reproduced paragraph 4 of the 1st respondent’s 4th further amended statement of claim. The 1st respondent proceeded to plead in paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 of her said statement of claim as follows:
“5. The claimant subsequently bought this land from Vincent Agenmonmeh for the sum of N6,500.00 (Six thousand and five hundred naira). The document evidencing this transaction in writing prepared by C.O. Ihensekhien, Esq., Benin City will be tendered as receipt at the trial.
6. The Certificate of Transfer prepared by the same C.O. Ihensekhien, Esq., handed over to the Claimant by Vincent Agenmonmeh will also be tendered and relied upon at the trial.
7. The Claimant took effective possession of the land under the Bini Native Laws and Custom.
8. The claimant in exercise of her

right of ownership and possession planted “agriculture” mango trees, plantain suckers and cashew trees on the land in dispute. She allowed Mr. Obadigie the use of the land for farming. Mr. Obadigie and his mother farmed on the land in dispute for a considerably long period without challenge or hindrance from the defendants or any person.”

As stated earlier, the appellant’s response to the 1st respondent’s claim was that the legal title of the land vested in the 2nd respondent – Mrs. Dora Noyeze Ukponmwan – the 1st defendant in the trial Court and that she offered to sell the land to him. See paragraph 2 of the appellant’s amended statement of defence.

On the other hand, the 2nd respondent averred in her 2nd further amended statement of defence that the land in dispute was transferred “to her by Princess Ighiwiyisi under Benin Native Law and custom in 1958 and that she later sold the land to the appellant. See paragraphs 6 and 16 of the said 2nd further amended statement of defence. The 2nd respondent proceeded to counterclaim in the manner earlier reproduced in this judgment. The

appellant’s claim to the land in dispute is therefore, tied to the title of the 2nd respondent.

As can be gleamed from the judgment of the trial Court, the 1st respondent fielded 6 witnesses and the appellant called 3 witnesses. The trial Court evaluated the evidence before it and made some far-reaching findings, inter, alia, that:
1. The 1st respondent, after buying the land in dispute, “applied for the Oba’s approval in 1974 and this was granted”;
2. The 1st respondent gave the land to PW1 and his mother to farm thereon in 1975 and they farmed on the land for 6 years;
3. To all intents and purposes, both the 1st respondent and 2nd respondent “have Oba’s approval for the land in dispute”;
4. “It is not possible for 2 people to be allocated one plot or parcel of land”;
5. From the evidence of PW4, the 1st respondent proved compliance with the steps for obtaining the Oba’s approval for sale of land under Bini Native Law and Custom “whereas the 1st defendant did not”;
6. There is no evidence that the appellant paid the sum of N1 million to the 2nd

respondent and paid the balance in 2000; and
7. “There being no proof that the transaction for the sale of land began before the suit was filed in Court, the 2nd defendant is caught by the doctrine of Lis Pendis”.

Neither the appellant nor the 2nd respondent appealed against any of the specific findings of fact by the trial Court, reproduced above. May I remind us that the law is that findings, by a Court, not appealed against, are deemed to be correct and, accordingly, accepted. See Ejowhomu v. Edet-Eter Mandilas Ltd. (1986) % NWLR (Pt. 39) 1; Obasi v. Onwuka (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 61) 364; Ndiwe v. Okocha (1992) 7 NWLR (Pt. 252) 129; Madam Adumola Adejumo & Ors. v. Mr. Oludayo Olawaiye (2014) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1421) 252; Wike Ezenkwo Nyesom v. Hon. (Dr.) Dakuku Adol Peterside & Ors (2016) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1492) 71 and Col. Mohammed Sambo Dasuki v. Federal Republic of Nigeria & Ors. (2018) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1627) 320.

Having regard to the evidence on record and the elaborate findings of the trial Court, which have neither been challenged by the 2nd respondent nor the appellant, the 1st respondent proved her entitlement to the land in

dispute and the appellant has not, in any way, shown how the decision of the trial Court is perverse.
I think that I have given sufficient reasons to resolve this issue against the appellant.
I hereby resolve Issue 2 also against the appellant and in favour of the 1st respondent.

CONCLUSION
Having resolved the two live issues against the appellant, this appeal is bereft of any merit and it is hereby dismissed.
The judgment of the trial Court, per Hon. Justice Efe Ikponmwonba, delivered on 6th day of December, 2013 in Suit No. B/460/1993 between: Mrs. Azuka Tuburu v. Mrs. Dora Noyeze Ikponmwonba and William Egede, is hereby affirmed.
The sum of N400,000.00 (Four hundred thousand naira only) is hereby awarded as costs in favour of the 1st respondent and against the appellant.

BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading in draft the lead judgment of my learned brother MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.C.A., just delivered. I am in complete agreement with adroit reasoning leading to the inescapable conclusions reached therein. I adopt the same as mine and I have nothing more to

add.

GABRIEL OMONIYI KOLAWOLE, J.C.A.: I agree with the resolution of the issues in the instant appeal by my learned brother, M.A.A. Adumein, JCA in the lead judgment just delivered that the appeal is unmeritorious and was dismissed.

I really do not have anything to add and I agree that the appeal be dismissed, and I abide with the consequential orders made as to costs.
Appeal is dismissed.

Appearances:

T. Udochi, Esq., with him, S. O. Oni, Esq. For Appellant(s)

O. Afolabi, Esq., with him, Shedrack Enyawuile, Esq. and Rahael Okhueleigbe, Esq. – for the 1st respondent. For Respondent(s)