GLOBACOM LTD v. CHUKWUKA (2020)

GLOBACOM LTD v. CHUKWUKA

(2020)LCN/14755(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(ASABA JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Wednesday, November 18, 2020

CA/AS/82/2017

RATIO

TORT: NATURE OF THE TORT OF TRESPASS

Trespass is a tort against possession that is actionable at the suit of the person in possession. It does not necessarily entail the proof of ownership of property to succeed in an action for trespass.
It is only where possession is not established that a person with title will be deemed to be in possession.
However a person in possession of land is presumed to be in a lawful possession against all persons except the one that proves a better title.
Secondly, at the challenge of the possessory right of a defendant in occupation, the occupier cannot be heard to say that the claimant/contender does not have title to the land or that title rested or vested in some other third person/party other than the person that claims ownership. PER DANJUMA, J.C.A.
DAMAGES: AWARD OF GENERAL DAMAGES

Since general damages is awardable per se even without proof of any quantum and it is at the discretion of the Court, PER DANJUMA, J.C.A.

Before Our Lordships:

Ayobode Olujimi Lokulo-Sodipe Justice of the Court of Appeal

Mohammed Ambi-Usi Danjuma Justice of the Court of Appeal

Abimbola Osarugue Obaseki-Adejumo Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

GLOBACOM LIMITED APPELANT(S)

And

MAZI CHUKWUKA RESPONDENT(S)

MOHAMMED AMBI-USI DANJUMA, J.C.A. (Delivering the leading Judgment): The Appellant herein was sued at the trial Court by the present Respondent claiming for himself and on behalf of the children of Mazi, of Umuinalu Quarters Ossisa in Ndokwa East Local Government Area of Delta State, as follows:
a) The Claimant claim against the Defendant is for the sum of N20, 000,000.00 (Twenty Million Naira) being special and general damages for trespass into the Claimant piece of land lying being and situate at Umuinalu Quarters, Ossissa when the Defendant sometime in June, 2010, trespassed onto the ‘Claimant’s land measuring 30 feet by 30 feet situate at Umuinalu Ossissa Ndokwa East Local Government Area of Delta State, within the judicial division of this Honourable Court and started erecting or constructing the Glo mast network without the consent, authority and or mandate of the Claimants first sought and obtained.
b) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, its agent, servants, privies, workmen, laborers or any person claiming for it, through or in trust for it or whomsoever from any acts of further act of trespass on or entering into

remaining on or erection or constructing any foundation, building or structure of any description whatsoever on the Claimant’s piece or parcel of and aforesaid.

The Appellant as Defendant filed her statement of Defence but out of time wherein she stated that the said land in dispute was leased to her via lease Agreement executed between her and the Inalu Family of Umu-Oshimili Quarters Ossissa in Ndokwa East Local Government Area of Delta State.

At the conclusion of the trial, the trial Court, on the 18th November 2016, entered Judgment in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendant as follows:
1. Judgment is entered in favour of the Claimant claims against the Defendant is for the sum of N20,000,000:00 (TWENTY MILLION NAIRA) being special and general damages for trespass into Claimant’s piece or parcel of land lying, situate and being at Umuinalu quarter Ossissa, When the defendant sometime in June 2010 trespassed onto Claimant’s land measuring 30 feet by 30 feet situate at Umuinalu Ossissa Ndokwa East local Government Area of Delta State, Within the Judicial Division of this Honorable Court and started erecting or constructing the Glo

Mask Network without the consent, authority and or mandate of the Claimant first sought and obtained.
2. An order of perpetual injunction is hereby granted restraining the Defendant, its agents, servants, privies, workmen, laborers or any person claiming for it, through or in trust for it or whomsoever from any acts or further acts (if trespass on or entering into, remaining on or erection or constructing any foundation, building or structure of any description whatever on the claimant’s piece or parcel of land aforesaid cost of this suit is assessed at N500,000 (five Hundred Thousand Naira) only.

Aggrieved, the defendant has appealed to this Court vide a Notice of Appeal filed on 23rd of November 2016 and predicated upon 7 (seven) Grounds of Appeal contained at pages 100-102 of the Record of Appeal which was transmitted out of time upon the grant of motion for extension of time to so compile and transmit filed on 23-3-2018 and granted by this Court.

For a clear appreciation of the appeal, the Grounds of Appeal and their respective particulars are set out herein under verbatim as follows:
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
GROUND I
a) That the trial High Court Kwale, Delta State

erred in law by holding that the allotee of a family land, by long possession, has exclusive right of possession and ownership over the land in issue as against the family who allotted the land and her successors- in- title, even when the family land has not been partitioned.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR:
1. Both parties agree that the land in issue belong to the INALU FAMILY Claimant averred that the land in issue was allotted to his father by the INALU FAMILY.
The Defendant averment that the land it occupied was leased to it by the same INALU family was not denied by the Claimant, yet the Court held that the Claimant is the owner of the land due to long possession, while the Defendant, to whom the family leased the land, is a trespasser.
GROUND II
The learned trial judge erred in law by relying on EXHIBIT ‘A’, Claimant’s personal survey plan, to determine the size, dimension and identity of the land, even when the survey plan is at variance with the Claimant’s pleadings and was prepared in anticipation of the suit.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR:
1. While the Claimants pleadings and evidence

show that the land was a family land, the survey plan shows that the land is a personal property of the Claimant.
2. The Claimant by his pleadings reveal that he did the survey plan a month after the Defendant took possession, and then file the suit Three (3) months later.
3. While the Claimant pleads that the size of the land is 30ft by 30ft, Exhibit A, the survey plan, put the size of the land at 801.304 Square Metres.
GROUND III
The trial judge erred in law by holding that the Defendant must produce further evidence in proof of the Defendant undenied averment, that the land was earlier allotted to another member of the family, before the family leased same to the Defendant, which shows that the land in possession of the Defendant is different from that of the Claimant.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR:
The claimant did not file a reply to the statement of Defence to contest the
Defendant averment that the land leased to the Defendant was earlier allotted to some-else by the family, before it was leased to the Defendant.
GROUND IV:
The trial Judge erred in law by granting special and general damages to the Claimant

in the absence of any evidence in proof of special damages.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR:
1. Special damages was not specifically pleaded
2. No evidence was given in proof of special damages
GROUND V
The total cost of about Seven Hundred Thousand Naira (700,000.00) awarded against the Defendant in favour of the Claimant in the course of this suit and on the day of judgment as cost is outrageous and unjustifiable in law.
GROUND VI:
That this Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit in the first instance.
3. RELIEFS SOUGHT
(a) AN ORDER of this Honourable Court upturning/reversing the judgment of HIS LORDSHIP, HON. JUSTICE O. JALOGHO- WILLIAMS (MRS) sitting at High Court of Kwale, Delta State contained in the judgment of the High Court Kwale, Delta State delivered on the 18th day of November 2016, for lack of merit and want of jurisdiction.
(b) AN ORDER setting aside any further steps taken by the Plaintiffs / Respondents and the Registry of the Trial High Court, Kwale, Delta State, pursuant to the judgment in this Suit.
The Appellant’s Brief of Argument settled by his learned

counsel C. Adejekota Esq. of C. Adjekota & Co and dated 28-8-2018 was filed on 29-8-2018; while the Respondent’s Brief of Argument dated and filed on 6-3-2019 was settled by A. R. RERRI, ESQ of Ibini & Co.

Appellant, thereafter filed an Appellant’s Reply Brief of Argument.
The Appellant raised 3 (three) issues for determination, thus:
1. Whether an allotee of a family land, which land is yet to be partitioned, has an exclusive right of ownership over the allotted land as against the family who originally own the land. (Grounds 1, 3, 5)
2. Whether the Respondent who has failed to establish the identity, area, measurement and boundaries of the land in dispute is entitled to an order of perpetual injunction against the Appellant? (Ground 2)
3. (Issue 3 – Whether it is right for the trial Court to award special damages to the Plaintiff who had failed to specifically plead or strictly proved (sic) special damages? From Ground 4)

On its part, the Respondent raised 2 (two) Issues for determination, thus:
ISSUE 1
1. Given the materials placed before the Court whether the learned trial Judge was right

when she held that the respondent has established his claim as required by law (Grounds 1, 2 and 3 of the Notice of Appeal).
ISSUE 2
Whether the claimant has been able to prove the ownership/exclusive possession of the piece or parcel of land being a member of INALU family and same are allocated to claimant father’s land.”

The Appellant is the aggrieved and his Issues as formulated are succinct and clear and therefore, I shall treat this appeal on the basis of the Issues nominated by him for challenging the decision of the trial Court.

ON ISSUE 1
It was argued that the law is settled that a family land remains so and no member of the family or sub-family has exclusive right of ownership over such a land until it is partitioned among the members or sub families.
The learned counsel referring to the cases of Olodo V. Josiah (2011) ALL FWLR (pt 573) 1897 at 1900, Osadim V. Tawo (2010) ALL FWLR (pt 534) 146 at 151 and Yesufu V. Adama (2010) (ALLFWLR) (pt 524) 69 at 70 contended that an unpartitioned family or community land does not confer title to any individual member as title belongs to the community or family. That it never losses its communal ownership;

and that where it is allotted to a member of the family, he cannot alienate it without the consent of the family.

Appellant’s counsel referred to paragraphs 5, 6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 and 14 of the Claimant/Respondent’s Amended statement of claim dated 17th day of March, 2011 found on pages 22-24 of the Record of Appeal wherein the Respondent stated that the land in dispute is part of a larger expanse of land owned by Umu-Inalu family in the Umu-Inalu Ndowka East Local Government Area of Delta State.

That the Respondent having testified that the land was allotted to his father who built an uncompleted building thereon and was buried there when he died in 1998 led no evidence to show that the Appellant took over the uncompleted building or built her mask on the uncompleted building or on the grave of the Respondent’s father.

That it was in evidence that the Defendant/Respondent was leased a portion of land measuring 13 feet by 13 feet by the same Inalu family but not the portion allotted to the Respondent’s father. This fact had been pleaded to in paragraphs 2,3,4,5,6 and 7 of the statement of Defence filed

on 7th May 2012. That the land wherein the mask is, is at Ogbesele Street Omu-Oshimili Quarters Ossisa in Ndokwa East Local Government Area of Delta State.
That it was different from that of the Respondent’s father.

Counsel submitted that, even if the land leased to it was the same land allotted to the Respondent’s father, title could not have passed or devolved on the Respondent’s father as the land had not been partitioned, and that ownership remained with the Inalu family, who had the lawful power to allot or lease any part to the Appellant especially that the portion leased to Appellant was outside the uncompleted building and grave side of the Respondent’s father.

That the lease was as pleaded in paragraph 7 of the statement of Defence Executed by the Head and Principal Members of the Inalu family and was, therefore, valid and lawful.
Terbia V Adeyemi was referred to, although an incomplete citation was made. That the Respondent being the Descendant of an allottee was only an allottee and cannot claim title or exclusive ownership and cannot exercise that right over the land against the

entire family being the original owners.

The learned counsel submitted that it had shown by its paragraphs 5,6,7 and 8 of the statement of Defence that the land had earlier being allotted by the family to one Uzoefum who relinquished it to the family for the lease to the Appellant for the overall interest of the entire family.
He urged that this issue be resolved in favour of the Appellant.

ISSUE 2
On the Issue 2, it was submitted that for a party to be granted an injunctive relief in respect of the land in dispute, sufficient evidence has to be led to establish with certainty the identity, area, size and boundaries of the land in respect of which injunction is sought. ADUA V ESSIEN (2010) ALL FWLR (pt 535) 359 at 361 relied upon.

It was argued that the Respondent as plaintiff at the trial Court had by his pleadings at paragraph 15(1) stated the size of the land trespassed upon to be 30ft by 30ft but that at the trial on the 11th February 2014, a survey plan of the land was tendered, as Exhibit ‘A’ showing the size of the land as 901.304 square metres, which measurement, is far larger than 30ft by 30ft as pleaded by the

Respondent in paragraph 15(1) of his Amended statement of claim.

That the Respondent’s witness CW1 – one Mrs Helen Chukwudi who claimed to have witnessed the allotment of the land in dispute to the Respondent’s father in 1977 admitted that the portion was not measured. That the size was, therefore, unknown until exhibit ‘A’ was obtained in 2010. That the survey plan, Exhibit ‘A’ was not counter-signed by the Surveyor General of Delta State and the relying on it to give Judgment, as was done at the trial Court was wrong.
That the survey plan was invalid and should be discountenanced.
That the land was pleaded as being allotted to Daniel Mazi and that it belonged to the entire family, but that Exhibit ‘A’ does not show it as Daniel Mazi’s family land but as personal property of Chukwuka Mazi alone.

That the Respondent obtained the Exhibit ‘A’ a couple of months after the Appellant was put in possession by the entire Inalu family of which claimant was only a member.
That the survey plan Exhibit ‘A’ was obtained for the purpose of this case. That there was

no evidence of the identity of the land.
That the Appellant had called witnesses and it was shown that one George Aniagala, the Head of the Inalu family with the consent of other principal members of the family. That the 2 witnesses were members of the Inalu family to which Respondent also belong. That the Respondent had confirmed that Mr. George Anigala was the Head of the Inalu family before he died on the 7th of July 2014; at page 53, it was confirmed by the Respondent’s witness. That this was long after Appellant had taken possession of the land.
That Issue 2 be resolved in favour of the Appellant.

ISSUE 3
It was submitted that to award special damages, it must have been specifically pleaded and strictly proved by evidence. Ajagbe V. Idowu 2011 ALL FWLR (pt 590) 1235 at 1238.

The learned counsel referring to the claim of N20,000,000 as special and general damages as made submitted that there was no proof by evidence led and the award of same as special damages and even the Additional N500,000 as General damages was wrong, let alone a further costs of N500,000.

That the Court proceeded on a wrong principle of law

in awarding special and general damages of N20,000,000 (twenty million naira) the exact sum claimed by the Respondent even though there was no evidence in proof of special damages.
It was also contended that the sum was outrageous and highly disproportionate in comparism with any loss the claimant might have suffered, in the course of this case.
That the Issue be resolved in favour of the Appellant.

On the whole this Court is urged at allow the Appeal and to set aside the entire decision of the trial Court and all steps taken consequent in terms of execution of the Judgment and the perpetual injunction granted by the trial High Court on the 18th December 2016.

On his part the Respondent argued his Issue One to the effect that the trial Court was right in holding that the Respondent had established his case.
That the Defendant/Appellant could not prove the alleged lease to it as the photocopy of the conveyance it tendered was inadmissible not having been registered and also for being a mere photocopy.
That the Plaintiff/Respondent’s father had an uncompleted building on the land allotted to him and same land had not been

proved to have been leased out to the Appellant.
Relying on the case of Idundun & Ors Vs. Okumagba and Ors (1976) 9-10 SC 227 and Alhaji Sikiru Gborigi Asela Kin & Anor Vs. Gann Magibi Bakare Isegbekun & 5 Ors (2002) 29 WRN 146 on the five (5) methods of proof of title to a piece of land thus:
1. By traditional evidence
2. By documents of title
3. By various acts of ownership numerous and positive and extending over a length of time to warrant the inference of ownership.
4. By acts of enjoyment and possession of the land
5. By proof of possession of adjacent land in circumstances which render it probable that the owner of such land would in addition be the owner of the disputed land.

The learned counsel submitted that none of the 5 ways of proof of title was established and that to make it worse, the claim of lease hold was not sustainable as it was based on a documentary evidence that had collapsed.
Alhaji A. B. Abubakar Vs. Alhaji Waziri & 3 Ors (2008) (2008) 50 WRN, page 164 ratio 9.

That it was elementary law that where a party leads evidence in proof of his case relying on documentary

evidence, that document had to be tendered in its original form or a copy in appropriate form as secondary evidence as the law does not allow oral evidence to be led in proof of a document; counsel contended that he being in long possession, the burden had shifted to the Appellant to show that the man in possession was not the owner. Section 146 of the Evidence Act andLawal Vs. Ijale (1967) NMLR 155 where the 4th, 5th 6th Defendants/Cross Appellants were found not to have established their title to the land relied upon.

It was also contended that long possession was capable of conferring an undisturbed right to possession except against the lawful owners or person claiming through the lawful owners.
See Shell B. P. Ltd V. Abadi & Ors (1974) 1 ALL NLR (pt 1) 1 (CA) per Aderemi, JCA

It was also argued that a party who fails to establish title to land can not plead the right of a third party to defeat another party’s possessory right.
That the Appellant who had so failed to established his claim of title cannot plead a third party right to justify his failure. Anukanti Vs. Ekwonyeaso (1978) 1 SC 37

It was finally submitted on

this issue that a party relying on traditional evidence must trace his title to that of the original owner of the land by adducing evidence.
That the respondent as plaintiff had done this, whilst the Appellant was unable to rebut same or establish any better title.
We have been urged to dismiss the appeal as lacking in merit.
That the Appellant’s case was a desperate attempt to rely on technicalities to mislead the Court.

Counsel submitted that the Courts have moved away from the era of technicalities to the realm of substantial justice. That addresses of counsel are designed to assist the Courts; that no amount of brilliance in speech can establish or disprove a case on a salient point which can only be made on established evidence.

RESOLUTION OF THE APPEAL
This appeal is a straight and clear one that seeks to upturn the decision of the trial Court which was given in favour of the Respondent.

The Appellant had been sued by the Plaintiff/Respondent herein claiming N20,000,000 as special and general damages for trespass and an order of injunction.
Trespass is a tort against possession that is actionable at the

suit of the person in possession. It does not necessarily entail the proof of ownership of property to succeed in an action for trespass.
It is only where possession is not established that a person with title will be deemed to be in possession.
However a person in possession of land is presumed to be in a lawful possession against all persons except the one that proves a better title.
Secondly, at the challenge of the possessory right of a defendant in occupation, the occupier cannot be heard to say that the claimant/contender does not have title to the land or that title rested or vested in some other third person/party other than the person that claims ownership.
The Appellant did not prove his reliance on the lease to it, as evidence of title. The lease hold was not proved as the documentary evidence thereof was inadmissible same not having been registered as a land instrument. It was also a photocopy that did not satisfy the requirement of nor was it tendered as a secondary evidence in a certified true copy form of a public document.
In the face of the aforesaid, the Respondent/Plaintiff who had proved by one of the 5 ways of

proof of title to land that he was in occupation by dint of the land having previously been allotted to his father, Daniel Mazi, whose uncompleted building was on the land and his grave thereon too.
The Respondent no doubt, had proved the identity of the land in respect of which he claimed damages for trespass and damages which ascertainable portion was known to the Appellant as he insisted, that it was not only different from the portion occupied by it (upon the lease agreement which I had found in agreement with the Respondent and the trial Court as not proved) but that the Respondent could not claim title or exclusive right to possession in a family land which had not been partitioned.
All the aforesaid arguments of the Appellant shows that the Appellant was very much aware of the land in respect of which the action for trespass was instituted against it.
The Appellant’s Issue No. 1 marks of raising the defence of jus terti ie a third party right. It does not apply to an action in damages for the tort of trespass to land. Whether the family land was partitioned or not, it is only the family that can raise a complaint on the effect

of the non-partition and the claim of possession by the Respondent. I agree entirely with the Appellant on the position of the law, save to say that the Appellant who is not a member of the family and having admitted that the land was part of a larger family land to which the Respondent admittedly was proved to belong and in occupation, he can have any title to defeat his claim when he had not shown a better title.
It is only the family that can show that the Respondent herein had been divested of the customary possessory title over the land occupied of his late father with the father’s uncompleted building and grave therein as marks of occupation even if not ownership, against the family as a whole.
I agree with the Respondent that there was no proof of the divestment of the possessory title of the Respondent by the family as the allotment claimed to have been made to one Uzoefume was not only proved but the said Uzoefume was neither in possession nor testified.
Even then, the argument that a subsequent allotment of the same portion of land could not have been made is obvious on the principle that you cannot give what you do not have any

longer ie Nemo da Quod non-habet.
In any event, the Allotment and its subsequent lease were both unproved. The 1st and 2nd Issues formulated by the Appellant are both resolved against it because:
1. The Appellant had no locus to contend that a family land was unpartitioned and therefore cannot be sued upon at the suit of one of the members of the family in possession who sues to protect his possession of an allotted portion and in respect of which he had a perpetual right of possession and in exclusivity to all persons and in particular third parties who cannot be heard to rake up the right of the family as a Defence to a claim against them.
For one, the family cannot reallote the same land twice over and more so without revoking its members possessory right or occupation by a partition and subsequent reallotment or dealing on the land by the family by its authorized or legal agents or representatives.
The Issue 3 relating to the award of special damages: special damages entails its specific pleadings and strict proof by evidence.
There was no evidence led at the trial at all in the proof of special damages. The basis of the

computation to arrive at the sum awarded as special damages was unknown. See Ajagbe V. Idowu
The trial Court also awarded N500,000 as general damages. Suffice it to note that the Appellant had at the trial claimed N20,000,000 as special and general damages. There was no claim distinctly made of general damages in the sum of N500,000.
Even if trespass had been found on the preponderance of the evidence led, general and special damages was not the known remedy that follows in compensation for the wrong purportedly committed.
The Respondent who had claimed an admixture of special and general Damages and lost for non-specific averment and strict proof cannot have that amorphous claim re-adjusted as a claim of general damages and to be awarded as such.
The Respondent who did not claim general damages was awarded what he did not ask for and more so the outrageous and highly dispassionate sum of N500,000 as general damages which was not claimed as such.
Since general damages is awardable per se even without proof of any quantum and it is at the discretion of the Court, I think a nominal sum will do. I think general damages in the sum of

N250,000 is reasonable in the circumstances. As for the award of costs, there has been no appeal against same with leave sought and granted and more so that it is a compensatory award usually ordered upon the discretion of the trial judge, I have not been shown any reason to interfere by variation of this exercise of discretion, I shall not interfere.
What is certain is that the Appellant relies heavily on the Respondent’s evidence in Cross examination that Mr. George Anigala was the Head of the Inalu family and had along with other principal members allotted the land and only died long after the Appellant had taken possession of the land.
It may well have been, but there was no documentary proof as he asserted a lease, which is a document, as a body corporate; an abstract creation of the law in a company form could not have entered into a valid oral agreement for a lease.
The claimant in the action for trespass had proved by credible evidence on the preponderance of evidence that he was in lawful occupation as against the Appellant who had not shown a better title or right to possession. As there can be no two persons in valid or lawful

occupation, one must give way for the other; one must be legal while the other will amount to trespass.
The learned trial judge was, therefore right when he held (at page 20 of his judgment) see page 94 of the record thus:
“I have taken time to state the above because a claim for trespass to land is rooted in exclusive possession. The onus is therefore on the claimant to prove by credible evidence he has exclusive possession against the Defendant or that he has right to such possession of the land in dispute. See the case of Amayo Vs. Erinmwingbovo SC NJI.
The Plaintiff/Appellant who did not have to prove title to succeed in his action for trespass had proved his exclusive possession of the land to which trespass was committed.
The learned trial judge was also on a firm ground when he held thus “claimant in paragraph 10 went on to show how his father took possession of the land in dispute and started erecting a building. The building went up to lintel level before his demise in 1993
In further show of their possessory rights the children of the late Daniel Mazi interred the body of the late Daniel Mazi at the premises.<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”>

</br<>

The Defendants on the other hand have not denied the averments as to how the land devolved on the claimant.
The Defendants or her witnesses have said nothing of the averments in paragraphs 8-12 of the statement of claim. The Defendants have not denied or challenged the fact that the land in question was allotted to the claimant’s father in 1977, who took possession and built on it.
Relevant evidence adduced and which is not challenged or rebunked must be accepted and relied upon by the Court.”
The trial Court, rightly relied on same and on the authority of Nwoko Nobi & 2 ors Vs. Benedict Udeorah & 5 ors (2012) SC 1.
It must be reiterated that the Appellant, trespassed to a known piece of land, being a portion of the family land known to both parties herein inclusive of the Appellant which was in lawful occupation of the Respondent upon allotment to his father Daniel Mazi by the family and had been entered into without proof of lawful authorization and consequently, general damages was payable.
Accordingly, the 3 Issues formulated by the appellant are each resolved as follows: Issues numbers 1 and 2 are resolved

against the Appellant and Issue 3 in favour of the Appellant.

In the circumstances, the appeal herein is allowed in part only; that is to say, that this Court affirms the decision of the trial Court on the issue of trespass to the identified land wherein the uncompleted building and grave are situate and as shown by Exhibit ‘A’ and reaffirms the order of perpetual injunction as ordered;

For the avoidance of doubt, the order for the award of N500,000 as general damages is set aside and in its stead or place, I substitute an order for the sum of N250,000 as the reasonable nominal general damages thereof.

The costs of prosecuting this appeal is assessed at N300,000 payable by the Appellant to the Respondent.

AYOBODE OLUJIMI LOKULO-SODIPE, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading in draft the leading judgment prepared in the instant appeal by my learned brother, MOHAMMED A. DANJUMA, JCA; and I cannot but agree with his lordship’s conclusion therein.

Accordingly, I too, find the instant appeal to succeed in part and abide by all the consequential orders contained in the said leading judgment including the order as to costs.

ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A.: I have had the opportunity to read in advance the lead judgment of my learned brother, MOHAMMED AMBI-USI DANJUMA, JCA and I agree with the reasoning and conclusion of my brother.

I also agree that the appeal partly succeeds.

I abide by all other consequential orders in the lead judgment.

Appearances:

Adjekota Esq. For Appellant(s)

C. Ibini Esq. For Respondent(s)