H. H. MURI OKOKON EDET EDEM AMBO & ANOR v. MURI EFFIONG OKOKON MBUKPA & ORS
(2013)LCN/6493(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 7th day of November, 2013
CA/C/111/2012
JUSTICES
MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
H. H. MURI OKOKON EDET EDEM AMBO & ANOR Appellant(s)
AND
MURI EFFIONG OKOKON MBUKPA & ORS Respondent(s)
RATIO
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT CAN GRANT RELIEF NOT SOUGHT OR CLAIMED BY PARTIES
The court has no power to grant a relief not sought or claimed. The duty of the court in civil cases is to render unto every one according to his proven claim See Niblett V. Akpan (2007) 38 WRN 191, Ekpenyong & Ors V. Nyong & Ors (2003) 51 WRN page 44, Adejulu Vs. Okulaja (1996) 9 NWLR pt 475 page 668, Nnaji Vs. Ede (1996) 8 NWLR pt 466 page 332.Counsel argued that by granting the Respondents a relief authorizing the Muri Munene of Efut Kingdom to endorse any document of transfer of land for himself and on behalf of Efut Abua and Efut Ekondo Combined Council amounts to granting a relief which the Respondents did not claim.
By so doing, the trial Judge committed a grave error which has also led to a miscarriage of justice. See Archibong vs. Ita (2004) 13 WRN page 1, Abioye Vs. Yakubu (1991) 5 NWLR pt 190 page 130, UAC (Nig) PLC Vs. Sobodu (2007) 48 WRN page 39. See also Ademola Vs. Sodipo (1990) 7 NWLR pt 253 page 251 where Ogundare JSC held thus:
“It is well settled rule that a court will not grant a relief not claimed by a party … we think that, as the relief granted by the learned trial Judge were not those sought by the parties, he went beyond his jurisdiction when he purported to grant such reliefs. It is trite law that the court is without power to award to a party that which he did not claim. This principle of law has, time and again, been stated and re-stated by this court that it seems to us that there is no longer any need to cite authorities in support of it. We take the view that this proposition of the law is not only good law, but good sense. A court of law may award that which was never claimed or pleaded by either party. It should always be borne in mind that a court of law is not a charitable institution, its duty, in civil cases is to render unto everyone according to proven claims”.
See Oscar C. F. & S Ltd vs. Ogunleye (2008) 17 WRN 167.Counsel submitted that the judgment of the trial Judge was perverse.
See Awodi Vs. Ajagbe (2007) 47 WRN page 106 where Sankey JCA stated thus:
“A decision is stated to be perverse
(a) When it runs counter to the evidence or
(b) Where it has been shown that the trial court took into account matters which it ought not to have taken into account or shut its eyes to the obvious or
(c) When it has occasioned a miscarriage of justice” PER NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A.
THE BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS
In civil matters, the onus of proving an allegation is on the plaintiff and the onus never shifts until he has proved his claim on the preponderance of evidence and balance of probabilities. It is after proving his claim on the balance of probabilities does the burden shift and continues to shift. See Iman Vs. Shariff (2005) 4 NWLR pt 914 page 80, Elias V. Omo-Bare (1982) 5 SC page 25, Agbi vs. Ogbeh (2006) 11 NWLR pt 990 page 65. PER NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A.
UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Cross River State sitting in Calabar delivered on 21st December, 2011 dismissing the case of the Appellant.
The Appellant as claimed in the court below claimed the following in his originating Writ of Summons against the Respondents as defendants.
1. A declaration that by virtue of the decision in Suit No. C/58/53 the 1st to 4th defendants have no right to execute documents of transfer of title in land in Calabar South Local Government Area covered by area of land in Survey Plan No. TJ/22/LD.
2. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st to 4th defendants from acting as representatives of the Efut Abua/Efut Ekondo Combined Council for the purpose of receiving compensations, land benefit, dividend of judgments in respect of land matter or any other matter relating thereto from the 4th defendant or any other government agency and other judgment debtors.
3. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st to 4th defendants from selling, leasing, allocating, mortgaging any plot or parcel or portion of land in Calabar South Local Government Area covered by Survey Plan. No. TJ/22/LD.
4. An order setting aside, canceling any document executed by the 1st to 4th defendants transferring any land belonging to the claimants in Calabar South Local Government Area or any land affected by the decision C/58/53 and covered by Survey Plan No. TJ/22/LD.
5. An order restraining the 5th defendant not to accept any document of purported transfer of land executed by the 1st to 4th defendant in respect of the communal land of Efut Abua/Efut Ekondo combined council in Calabar South Local government Area.
There were several affidavits filed by the parties. Exhibits were also filed by both parties in support of their case. The parties filed their written addresses and the trial Judge delivered his considered judgment on 21st December, 2011 dismissing the claimants’ claim.
Being dissatisfied, the claimants/Appellants filed their notice and four grounds of appeal. Also filed is the Appellants brief on 7th November, 2012 but deemed properly filed and served on 26th March, 2013. The Appellants articulated one issue for determination as follows:
Whether the lower court is at liberty to grant a relief not claimed by either of the parties.
The 1st-4th Respondents filed their brief on 23rd November, 2012 but deemed properly filed and served on 26th March, 2013. The 1st – 4th Respondent adopted the only issue articulated by the Appellants. The 5th Respondent filed no brief.
On the date for hearing the Appellants adopted their brief and urged the court to allow their appeal. The 1st – 4th Respondent adopted their brief and urged the court to dismiss the appeal.
The learned counsel to the Appellants submitted that at the close of arguments by both parties the trial Judge adjourned for ruling but delivered a judgment and held as follows:
“I have no reason to doubt any of these assertions. Indeed I had noted earlier in this judgment that the Muri Munene who is also the grant patriarch of Efut Nation is the one who endorses documents of transfer of Efut land. If the 1st defendant is the acclaimed Muri Munene of Efut kingdom, then it will not be out of place for him to endorse transfer documents of land for himself and on behalf of Efut Abua and Efut Ekondo combined Council. And this will be in the spirit of the judgment in C/59/53”
Counsel argued that the judgment of the court is contrary to the issues and claims before the trial court for determination. The court has no power to grant a relief not sought or claimed. The duty of the court in civil cases is to render unto every one according to his proven claim See Niblett V. Akpan (2007) 38 WRN 191, Ekpenyong & Ors V. Nyong & Ors (2003) 51 WRN page 44, Adejulu Vs. Okulaja (1996) 9 NWLR pt 475 page 668, Nnaji Vs. Ede (1996) 8 NWLR pt 466 page 332.Counsel argued that by granting the Respondents a relief authorizing the Muri Munene of Efut Kingdom to endorse any document of transfer of land for himself and on behalf of Efut Abua and Efut Ekondo Combined Council amounts to granting a relief which the Respondents did not claim.
By so doing, the trial Judge committed a grave error which has also led to a miscarriage of justice. See Archibong vs. Ita (2004) 13 WRN page 1, Abioye Vs. Yakubu (1991) 5 NWLR pt 190 page 130, UAC (Nig) PLC Vs. Sobodu (2007) 48 WRN page 39. See also Ademola Vs. Sodipo (1990) 7 NWLR pt 253 page 251 where Ogundare JSC held thus:
“It is well settled rule that a court will not grant a relief not claimed by a party … we think that, as the relief granted by the learned trial Judge were not those sought by the parties, he went beyond his jurisdiction when he purported to grant such reliefs. It is trite law that the court is without power to award to a party that which he did not claim. This principle of law has, time and again, been stated and re-stated by this court that it seems to us that there is no longer any need to cite authorities in support of it. We take the view that this proposition of the law is not only good law, but good sense. A court of law may award that which was never claimed or pleaded by either party. It should always be borne in mind that a court of law is not a charitable institution, its duty, in civil cases is to render unto everyone according to proven claims”.
See Oscar C. F. & S Ltd vs. Ogunleye (2008) 17 WRN 167.Counsel submitted that the judgment of the trial Judge was perverse.
See Awodi Vs. Ajagbe (2007) 47 WRN page 106 where Sankey JCA stated thus:
“A decision is stated to be perverse
(a) When it runs counter to the evidence or
(b) Where it has been shown that the trial court took into account matters which it ought not to have taken into account or shut its eyes to the obvious or
(c) When it has occasioned a miscarriage of justice”
Counsel submitted that where the trial court, like in this case, has erroneously appraised and evaluated the evidence adduced before it, the Appellate court is empowered to reappraise and re-evaluate the evidence on the printed record before it in order to arrive at a fair and just decision Fashonu Vs. Adekoye (1974) 6 SC page 83, Aikulola V. Akogwu (2006) 41 WRN page 51, Oko V. Ntukidem (1993) 2 NWLR pt 274 page.
Counsel conceded that the evaluation of evidence is the primary function of the trial court and where it has been satisfactorily carried out, the Appeal Court will not interfere, but when a trial court fails in its duty of evaluation of evidence the Appellate court will interfere. Counsel, therefore, urged the court to re-evaluate the evidence presented before the trial court and reach a just decision. See Ebenchi vs. State (2009) 2 WRN page 6 where Ogbuagu JSC held thus:
“It is now settled that where a trial court has erred in evaluating the facts found by it, an appellate court, like in this case can re-examine the whole facts and come to an independent decision as the court of trial”
See also on this principle of law Fatoyinbo vs. Williams (1956) 1 FSC 87: Benmase Vs. Austin Motor Co. Ltd (1955) AC 370.
Counsel, therefore, urged the court to hold that the decision of the trial court was based on issues not placed before it. The claimant did not canvas the issue of the power of the Muri Munene to transfer joint land of the Efut Ekondo and Efut Abua in the Lower Court. Counsel urged the court to resolve this lone issue on behalf of the Appellant and allow the appeal.
In reply, the learned counsel to the 1st – 4th Respondents submitted that the finding of the trial Judge was not perverse. The trial Judge held thus:
“I have no reason to doubt any of the assertions. Indeed, I had noted earlier in this judgment that the Muri Munene, who is also the grand patriarch of Efut Nations is the one who endorses documents of transfer of Efut land. If the 1st Defendant is the acclaimed Muri Munene of Efut Kingdom, it will not be out of place for him to endorse transfer documents of land for himself and one behalf of Efut Abua and Efut Ekondo Combined Council. And this will be in the spirit of Judgment in C/58/53”
Counsel stated that the findings of the trial Judge was according to the evidence placed before it. The above findings were as a result of the evaluation of affidavit evidence of both parties. This is, therefore, not a question of granting reliefs not claimed. Counsel referred the court to page 8 where the claimants/Appellants averred:
That an agreement for transfer of land in this area can only be effectively executed by the joint head of Efut Abua and Efut Ekondo.
Counsel also referred the court to the Further/Affidavit of 2nd defendant on page 81 of Record of Appeal. There was no counter to all these averments by the Appellants. The trial Judge was therefore right in making such findings. It is really the duty of the trial Judge to evaluate evidence and ascribe probative value to them. See Onwubuariri vs. Igboasoiyi (2011) 3 NWLR pt 1234 page 357, Arowolo vs. Olowookere (2011) 18 NWLR pt 1278 page 280.
Counsel submitted that the findings of the court, that Muri Munene of Efut Kingdom to endorse any document of transfer of land for himself and on behalf of Efut Abua and Efut Ekondo Combined Council were borne out of the reliefs and the Counter/Affidavit before the court. Counsel referred the court to page 2 of the Record of Appeal and paragraph 1, 2 & 3 which reads as follows:
1. A declaration that by the decision in Suit No C/58/53, the 1st to 4th Defendants have no right to executed documents of transfer of title in land in Calabar South covered by area of land in Survey Plan No: TJ/22/LD.
2. An order of Perpetual Injunction against the 1st to 4th Defendants from acting as representative of the Efut Efut Abua and Efut Ekondo Combined Council for the purpose of collecting compensation on land and others.
3. Perpetual Injunction Restraining the 1st to 4th Defendants from setting, leasing, allocating mortgaging any Plot of land in Calabar South covered by Survey No. TJ/22/LD.
Counsel argued that in response, the 1st-4th Defendant/Respondents in their Counter/Affidavit at page 53 paragraphs 4 averred as follows:
“That the Judgment in 1953 is very clear and unambiguous and since then Muri Munene of Efut have been exercising his right over the sale of land in Efut with the active participation and benefits of the Claimants Exhibit “F”, “G” “H” and “I”.”
See also the further/Affidavit of the 2nd Defendant at page 88 of the record of Appeal. The above exhibits clearly show that the Appellants witnessed the lease agreements executed by the late Muri Munene in respect of Efut Land. See also the further/affidavit of the 2nd Defendant/Respondent at page 88 of the Record of Appeal which states as follows:
“That I am the Secretary General of Efut Abua/Efut Ekondo Combined Council.
That the 3rd Defendant is the Chairman of Efut Combined Assembly. That the 1st Defendant is acclaimed Muri Munene of Efut and has been so proclaimed by the entire Efut Kingdom on 16th November, 2009, Exhibit A1. That he has carried out his function of office like his predecessors.”
The evidence found in the averments of the Counter/Affidavit and the Further/Affidavits were unchallenged by the Appellants. The trial Judge then found for the Respondents that the 1st Appellant is the proclaimed Muri Munene and he has been carrying out the functions of his office like his predecessors by executing documents on behalf of his Efut Kingdom.
Evidence not challenging is deemed admitted. See Igbinovia & Ors vs. Agboifo (2002) FWLR pt 103 page Uzo Vs. Nnalimo (2000) FWLR pt 3 page 414, Omotayo Vs. CSA (2010) 16 NWLR pt 1218 page 1 where the Supreme Court held thus:
“The test to be applied in determining whether the findings of a trial Court are supported by the evidence on record will be whether there was any evidence, no matter how slight to support the findings of the Court. If the answer is yes, that concludes the findings and put on them a stamp of finality.”
Counsel finally urged the court to resolve this issue in favour of the Respondents.
The Appellants had claimed in the lower court the following reliefs which I will recap hereunder for emphasis.
1. A declaration that by virtue of the decision in Suit No. C/58/53 the 1st to 4th defendants have no right to execute documents of transfer of title in land in Calabar South Local Government Area covered by area of land in Survey Plan No. TJ/22/LD.
2. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st to 4th defendants from acting as representatives of the Efut Abua/Efut Ekondo Combined Council for the purpose of receiving compensations, land benefit, dividend of judgments in respect of land matter or any other matter relating thereto from the 4th defendant or any other government agency and other judgment debtors.
3. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st to 4th defendants from selling, leasing, allocating, mortgaging any plot or parcel or portion of land in Calabar South Local Government Area covered by Survey Plan. No. TJ/22/LD.
4. An order setting aside, canceling any document executed by the 1st to 4th defendants transferring any land belonging to the claimants in Calabar South Local Government Area or any land affected by the decision C/58/53 and covered by Survey Plan No.
TJ/22/LD.
5. An order restraining the 5th defendant not to accept any document of purported transfer of land executed by the 1st to 4th defendant in respect of the communal land of Efut Abua/Efut Ekondo combined council in Calabar South Local government Area.
Reliefs 1-4 all urged the court to find that the 1st – 4th Respondents do not have a right to execute or deal with land belonging to Efut Abua and Efut Ekondo. The reliefs readily put into question the rights of 1st-4th Respondents. The Appellants wanted the court to declare that the 1st – 4th Respondents had no right to do what there were doing in their community as regards land.
The Appellants in their affidavit in support of their originating summons page 4 of the Record of Appeal paragraph 1-3 averred as follows:
(1) That I am a traditional ruler and the clan head of Efut Ekondo of Calabar South Local government Area.
(2) That the 1st claimant is a traditional ruler and the clan head of Efut Anantigha clan head of Efut Anantigha clan of Efut Abua I Calabar South Local Government Area.
(3) That we institute this action as lawful representatives of Efut Abua and Efut Ekondo Combined Council in Calabar South Local Government Area.
(4) That I depose to this affidavit as lawful representative of Efut Abua and Efut Ekondo combined Council and the 1st claimant has given his consent to these facts. That our respective certificate of recognition as clan heads are hereto attached and marked Exhibit A and B.
See also paragraph 5-8 page 5 of the Record of Appeal:
That the 1st defendant is the clan head of Efut Abua East, Calabar South Local Government Area. The 2nd defendant is purporting to acting as the Chairman of Efut Combined Assembly, while the 3rd defendant is an Eket man from Akwa Ibom State, currently acting the secretary-general of the Efut Combined Assembly.
6. That sometime in 1953 in a dispute between the Efut Ekondo community which I represent and the Efut Abua currently which the 1st claimant represents, the court decided that land in Efut Abua Community and Efut Ekondo Community are jointly held as communal land. The said judgment in C/58/53 and the Survey Plan No. TJ/22/LD is hereto attached and marked Exhibit G.
From the averments of the claimants in their affidavit, it can only be deciphered who the claimants are. The claimants also averred to the identity of 1st – 3rd Defendants/Respondents but failed to identify who the 4th Defendant/Respondent is. Albeit, the 5th Defendant/Respondents is the government of Cross River State.
The Appellant stated in a nutshell, that the 1st-4th Defendant/Respondent are not competent to deal with land covered by survey plan TJ/22/LD jointly owned by Efut Abua and Efut Ekondo Community of Calabar South Local Government Area. The Appellants failed to prove to the court, who other than the Respondents, are competent to deal with the so called land issues. See paragraph 8 of the claimant’s affidavit in support of their motion filed 11th April, 2011 which reads as follows:
That an agreement for transfer of land in this area can only be effectively executed by the joint head of Efut Abua and Efut Ekondo.
See also paragraph 11 of the said affidavit:
Here the Appellants complained about the activities of the Respondents but did not proffer the name of the people who are supposed to deal with the land issues as complained by the Appellants. The Appellants averred that the Respondents were not the people who should deal with such land issues as contained in the judgment C/58/53.
The Appellants brought this suit as for themselves and in a representative capacity. However, by a letter of 23rd October, 2002 and 18th December, 2002 the 2nd Appellant was suspended from the Efut Abua and Efut Ekondo Combined Council. This state of affairs was not contradicted in any of their affidavit. It would be taken that the 2nd Appellant had indeed no locus in bringing this suit on a representative capacity when he had been suspended from the combined council. The 2nd Appellant was still challenging his suspension as at the time this suit was initiated in the High Court. See Exhibit A, B, C, D & E.
The Appellants in their averment failed to describe the Respondents on page 88 of Record of Appeal where the Respondents described themselves this:
I, NDABO GODWIN BASSEY, male, Christian, Nigeria citizen, and Secretary-General of Efut Abua and Efut Ekondo Combined Council, do hereby make Oath and state as follows:
1. That I am the 2nd Defendant in HC/124/2011.
2. That I have sought and obtained the prior consent of other Defendants to depose to this Further-Affidavit to exhibit documents.
3. That the 3rd is the Chairman of the Efut Combined Assembly, while the 4th Defendant is the chairman of the Efut Abua and Efut Ekondo Combined Council.
4. That the 1st Defendant is acclaimed Muri Munene of Efut and has been so proclaimed by the entire Efut kingdom on the 16th day of November, 2009. See Exhibit A1.
5. That he has carried out the functions of his office like his predecessors.
6. That the 2nd Defendant tried to challenge him and the Suit was struck out in HC/373/2009. See Exhibit A2.
7. That it has been confirmed that Muri Munene in the exercise of his office endorses documents concerning alienation of land. See Exhibit B.
8. That I make this oath in good faith and in line with the Oaths Act of 2004.
The Appellants never challenged this description of the Respondents. It, therefore, stands as what the Respondents are and what they represent.
The Appellants complained that the trial Judge failed to evaluate the evidence placed before the court. The appraisal of evidence and ascription of probative value is the primary duty of the trial court.
I have no doubt in my mind, from the evidence placed before the trial court, that it evaluated it properly. The trial Judge painstakingly combed the affidavits of both parties, the exhibits and documents filed as processes in the suit. The trial Judge evaluated the evidence well before making his findings.
In civil matters, the onus of proving an allegation is on the plaintiff and the onus never shifts until he has proved his claim on the preponderance of evidence and balance of probabilities. It is after proving his claim on the balance of probabilities does the burden shift and continues to shift. See Iman Vs. Shariff (2005) 4 NWLR pt 914 page 80, Elias V. Omo-Bare (1982) 5 SC page 25, Agbi vs. Ogbeh (2006) 11 NWLR pt 990 page 65.In the instant case fought on affidavit evidence, the plaintiff, in order to obtain judgment, must prove by affidavit the reliefs sought otherwise the action will fail. The court can only give the plaintiff judgment if the facts deposed to in the affidavit vindicate the remedy sought Attorney General of Anambra State V. Attorney General of the Federation (2005) 9 NWLR pt 931 page 572.
The Appellants could not prove the reliefs sought in the trial court. The Appellants could not also counter the averments in the Counter/Affidavit and Further/Affidavit of the 2nd defendant and, therefore, the trial court was correct to find as it did in its judgment where he held thus.
In conclusion, I find and hold that the claimants failed to make out a case for, the grant of any of the reliefs sought in the originating Summons.
The claim therefore will be and is hereby dismissed.
The Appellants complained that the trial Judge had no vires to hold as it did thus.
I have no reason to doubt any of these assertions. Indeed I had noted earlier in this judgment that the Muri Munene who is also the Grand Patriarch of Efut Nation is the one who endorses documents of transfer of Efut land. If the 1st defendant is the “acclaimed Muri Munene of Efut Kingdom”, then it will not be out of place for him to endorse transfer documents of land for himself and on behalf of Efut Abua and Efut Ekondo combined Council. And this will be in the spirit of the judgment in C/58/53.
This was an aside made by the trial Judge in the body of the judgment. The Appellants did not prove their claim to the reliefs sought and, therefore, not entitled to judgment. Where no evidence is led to establish the claims made before a court, such claims will be dismissed for want of evidence. Remi vs. INEC (2005) 6 NWLR pt 920 page 56.
The Appellants in the court below failed to prove their claims before that court and, therefore, their claims ought to fail. The comments made by the trial Judge the Appellants were complaining about, was made as an aside. The court did not grant it as a relief. The court did not grant any relief; it merely dismissed the claims of the Appellant as having not been proved.
The lone issue articulated by the Appellant is resolved against them. This appeal is unmeritorious and, therefore, failed.
I affirm the judgment of the trial court. Cost to the Respondents is assessed at N50,000.00.
MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A.: A draft of the lead judgment delivered by my learned brother Uzo I. Ndukwe-Anyanwu, JCA in this appeal was read by me before today. The lone issue submitted by the learned counsel for the Appellants in the appeal has been adequately considered in the lead judgment and I agree with the conclusion that the High Court did not grant a relief not claimed by the parties in the case when it stated in the course of its judgment that:-
“I have no reason to doubt any of these assertions. Indeed, I had noted earlier in this judgment that the Muri Munene who is also the grant (sic) patriarch of Efut Nation is the one who endorses documents of transfer of Efut land. If the 1st defendant is the acclaimed Muri Munene of Efut Kingdom, then it will not be out of place for him to endorse transfer documents of land for himself and on behalf of Efut Abua and Efut Ekondo Combined Council. And this will be in the spirit of the judgment in 2/58/53.”
Clearly, the Appellants’ counsel did not appeal against the finding by the High Court referred to in the above statement, that the Muri Munene who is the grand patriarch of the Efut Nation is the one who endorses documents of transfer of Efut land. The statement, which is actually and in effect, an observation and not a decision, that if the 1st defendant was the acclaimed Muri Munene of Efut Kingdom or Nation, it will not be out of place for him to endorse transfer documents of land for him self, as Muri Munene and on behalf of Efut Nation as its grand patriarch, was as a consequence of the finding of the undisputed fact that it was part of the official functions performed by the person, and office of the grant patriarch of the Efut Nation or Kingdom: the acclaimed Muri Munene. As a mere observation, it is neither an order nor a relief granted by the High Court to which a claim con properly be made and as such not a decision by that court.
Learned counsel is right however that a court of law not being a charitable institution, has no power to grant a relief to a party which he did not claim or more than he claimed in the case put forward by him for determination by the court, except as a consequence to the relief sought for and granted to the party and purely for the purpose of giving effect to the judgment of the court. See Union Beverage Ltd Owolabi (1988) 1 SCNJ, 122: Akinbobola v. Plisson Fisko Nig, Ltd. (1991) 1 NWLR (167) 270: Jika v Akuson (2006) ALL FWLR (293) 276: Attorney-General Abia State v AGF (2006) ALL FWLR (338) 604: Agip Nig. Ltd. v Agip Petroleum International (2010) 5 NWLR (1187) 348; Stowe v Benstowe (2012) 1 MJSC (Pt. 1) 158.
Furthermore, since there is no appeal or issue raised by the learned counsel for the Appellant on decision by the High Court that they had failed to prove their claims in the case and thereby dismissing it, there is no legal basis for resort by the court to the reappraisal or evaluation of the evidence before that court as the learned counsel would want the court to do by some of his arguments on the lone issue. In the absence of a valid ground of appeal and on issue formulated therefrom in the Appellants’ brief, a finding of fact or law made by a trial court is deemed in law to have been accepted and binding and an appellate count would lack the requisite power to reopen it in an appeal. See Green v Green (1987) 7 SCNJ, 255: State v Edo (1991) 7 NWLR (201) 98: Zakari v. Alhassan (2002) 14 NWLR (786) 52: Standard (Nig) Eng. Co. Ltd. v N.B.C.I. (2006) ALL FWLR (316) 255.
For the above and fuller reasons given in the lead judgment which are adopted by me, I too find no merit in the appeal and join in dismissing it in terms of the lead judgment.
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE, J.C.A.: My Learned brother, Uzo I. Ndukwe-Anyanwu, JCA, obliged me with the draft of the leading judgment just delivered now. I agree that this appeal is unmeritorious. I, therefore, enter an order dismissing it for the fuller reasons, eloquently, advanced in the said leading judgment. I abide by the consequential orders therein.
Appearances
U. Eba, Esq.
J. Osumuo Esq.For Appellant
AND
U. Oduyemi (Mrs.)
A. E. Ofem Esq. Senior State Council II Ministry of JusticeFor Respondent
