I.A.D. (NIG) LTD & ANOR v. SALISU & ORS
(2022)LCN/16811(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(YOLA JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Wednesday, March 09, 2022
CA/YL/93/2018
Before Our Lordships:
Jamilu Yammama Tukur Justice of the Court of Appeal
Yusuf Alhaji Bashir Justice of the Court of Appeal
Abdul-Azeez Waziri Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
1. I.A.D. NIGERIA LIMITED 2. MR. ILIYA ADAMU APPELANT(S)
And
1. ALHAJI ADAMU SALISU 2. THE HONOURABLE COMMISSIONER MINISTRY OF LAND & SURVEY, ADAMAWA STATE 3. ADAMAWA STATE MINISTRY OF LAND & SURVEY 4. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL & COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE, ADAMAWA STATE RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO
METHODS OF PROVING TITLE OF OWNERSHIP TO LAND
The Supreme Court in the case of DAKOLO & ORS. v. REWANE-DAKOLO & ORS. (2011) LPELR-915(SC) per RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C. (Pp. 23-24, paras. F-D) reiterated the five methods by which a Plaintiff may prove his entitlement to declaration of title to land thus:
“There are five ways in which ownership/title to land may be proved. They are: 1. Proof of traditional evidence; 2. Proof of acts of ownership, acts by persons claiming the land such as selling, leasing, renting out all or part of the land, or farming on it or otherwise utilising the land beneficially such acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time and numerous and positive enough to warrant the inference that he is the true owner; 3. Proof by production of document of title which must be authenticated; 4. Proof of ownership by acts of long possession and enjoyment in respect of the land to which the acts are done; 5. Proof of possession of connected or adjacent land, circumstances rendering it probable that the owner of such connected or adjacent land would in addition be the owner of the land in dispute, may rank also as means of proving ownership of the land in dispute. See: Amajideogu v Ononaku (1988) 2 NWLR pt.78 p.616Piaro v Tenalo 1976 12 SC p31 Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) 9-10 SC p224 Omoregie v. Idugiemwanye (1985) 2 NWLR Pt.5 p.41”
See: BAYO & ANOR v. SULYMAN & ORS (2019) LPELR-47380(CA); EKEZIE & ORS v. TASIE & ORS (2019) LPELR-46451(CA); and YAHAYA v. Haruna (2019) LPELR-47706(CA). PER TUKUR, J.C.A.
WHETHER OR NOT A PARTY CAN CREATE OR MANUFACTURE DOCUMENTS DURING THE COURSE OR IN ANTICIPATION OF LITIGATION
With regards to issue two, it is indeed correct to state that the law frowns on the creation or manufacture of documents during the course or in anticipation of litigation. Section 83(3) of the Evidence Act 2011 which prohibits reliance on such evidence provides thus:
“Nothing in this section shall render admissible as evidence any statement made by a person interested at a time when proceedings were pending or anticipated involving a dispute as to any fact which the statement might tend to establish.”
A cursory look at the above provision reveals that what is prohibited by statute is the creation or manufacture by a person of a document during or in anticipation of litigation, it does not prohibit the application for the production of a public document by a party, to officials of government acting in the normal course of their duty, which in the absence of any cogent evidence to the contrary, would be taken as proper. There is no doubt that the 1st Respondent is not the maker of exhibit 4 and as such the above stated principle of law will not in my humble view apply to render the exhibit inadmissible.
See: Olomo v. Ape(2015) 14 NWLR (Pt1478) at 46 page 60 paras G-H; and Lumatron Nigeria Limited & Anor v. First City Monument Bank Plc (2016) LPELR-41409 (CA). PER TUKUR, J.C.A.
THE POSITION OF LAW ON GENERAL DAMAGES
General damages are damages that the law presumes once a claim has been successfully established and they flow from the type of wrong complained about by the victim. They are compensatory damages for harm that results from the wrong for which a party has sued; that the harm is reasonably expected and need not be alleged or proved.
See: British Airways v. Atoyebi (2014) 13 NWLR (Pt.1424) 253; and Rematon Service Ltd. v. NEM Ins. Plc (2020) 14 NWLR (Pt.1744) 281. PER TUKUR, J.C.A.
THE POSITION OF LAW ON THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH THE APPELLATE COURT CAN INTERFERE IN THE AWARD OF DAMAGES BY THE TRIAL COURT
The grounds upon which an appellate Court would interfere in a trial Court’s award of damages include where the trial Court proceeds upon a wrong principle or on no principle of law at all and makes an award which is apparently unwarranted, extravagant, unreasonable and unconscionably excessive, in comparison with the greatest loss that would possibly flow from the breach of contract in question and without stating the basis of the assessment. See: B.A.L Co. Ltd v. Landmark University (2020) 15 NWLR (Pt.1748) 465 (CA); E.B. Plc, Awo Omamma v. Nwokoro (2012) 14 NWLR (Pt1321) 488.
Another ground upon which an Appellate Court would set aside the award of damages is where the upholding of such an award would amount to double compensation. Where a party has suffered wrong as a result of another’s action, what the law seeks to do is ensure the victim is adequately compensated. Thus where a party has been fully compensated, the law frowns at awarding such party more compensation.
See: Mekwunye v. Emirates Airlines (2019) 9 NWLR (Pt.16770 191; NICON Hotels Ltd v. N.D.C. Ltd (2007) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1051) 237 (CA); and U.T.C. (Nig.) Plc v. Philips (2012) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1295) pg.136 (CA). PER TUKUR, J.C.A.
JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Adamawa State in SUIT NO: ADSY/121/2012 delivered on 19th June, 2017 by Honourable Justice Ambrose D. Mammadi, wherein the Court gave judgment in favour of the 1st Respondent.
The material facts of the case leading to this appeal is that the 1st Respondent, as Plaintiff brought an action via an amended writ of summons dated 19th June, 2013 and filed on 24th June, 2013, together with his amended statement of claim dated 19th June, 2013 and filed on 24th June, 2013, seeking the following:
1. A declaration of title to the piece of land in dispute measuring 23281.30m (2.16mtrs) situate along Yola to Numan Federal High Way near Federal Government Grain Reserves Silos at Kwanan Waya village in Yola South Local Government Area of Adamawa State formerly covered by Yola South Local Government Customary Certificate of Occupancy No. YSLG/WKS/LAN/NAM/VL.11/0018 and now covered by Right of Occupancy No. ADS/24071 in favour of the Plaintiff.
2. A declaration that the entry of the 1st defendant on the authority of the 2nd–5th defendants into the land in dispute by dumping building materials, planting molding machine, demolishing the L-shape border walls, clearing the land and building on it amounted to various acts of trespass by the defendants against the plaintiff.
3. An order of the Court directing the defendants to remove all their illegal structures, equipment, and materials from the plaintiff’s land subject of this suit and vacate the property or the plaintiff to remove same at the cost to be borne by the defendants.
4. An order of the Court declaring as illegal, null and void any allocation of the land in dispute to the 1st and/or 2nd defendants by the 3rd to 5th defendants and setting aside any allocation letter granted to 1st defendant or anybody in respect thereof.
5. An order of the Court declaring as null and void any purported acquisition of the plaintiff’s land in dispute from the plaintiff to 1st and 2nd defendants by the 3rd to 5th defendants or anybody.
6. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants or their agents, privies or anybody or person claiming for them or under them from further entering or using the land in dispute or tempering in anyway with the peaceful possession, ownership and enjoyment of the land in dispute by the plaintiff.
7. An order directing the defendants to pay the sum of N20,000,000 (Twenty Million Naira only) as general damages for trespass.
8. Cost of the suit.
ALTERNATIVELY
1. An order of the Court directing defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of N50,000,000 (Fifty Million Naira only) as compensation for his land if at all the defendants want to take over the land on overriding public interest.
2. An order for payment of N20,000,000 (Twenty Million Naira only) as damages for trespass in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants.
3. Allocation of alternative suitable plot commensurate to the plot in dispute in terms of size and location by the 3rd – 5th defendants in favour of the plaintiff.
4. Cost of the suit.
The above originating processes were duly served and relevant processes were exchanged between parties. The matter subsequently devolved into a full trial, and after trial had been concluded, in a judgment delivered on 19th June, 2017, the trial Judge held that the 1st Respondent successfully established ownership of the land in dispute and that the Appellants herein failed to show that the 2nd to 4th Respondents revoked the land and reallocated same to the Appellants. The Court also awarded the sum of N10,000,000 (Ten Million Naira only) as general damages against the Appellants, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents, jointly and severally.
Dissatisfied, the Appellants appealed the judgment via a Notice of Appeal filed on 21st May, 2018 (pages 401–405 of the Record of Appeal).
The extant Amended Notice of Appeal was filed on 24th September, 2020 but deemed properly filed on 5th October, 2020, with four grounds of appeal.
The Appellant’s Amended Brief of Argument is dated and filed on 19th July, 2021, but deemed properly filed on 26th October, 2021.
Appellant`s counsel formulated three issues for determination to wit:
1. Whether the 1st Respondent has sufficiently proved his title to the land in dispute as required by law to be entitled to the reliefs sought in his amended Statement of Claim. (Grounds 1 & 2)
2. Whether exhibit 4, that is grant of Right of Occupancy was not prepared or processed in anticipation of the suit before the trial High Court and therefore inadmissible. (Ground 4)
3. Whether the general damages of ten million naira (N10,000,000.00) only awarded against the Appellants and the 2nd–4th Respondents for trespass is not excessive and therefore unjustifiable. (Ground 3)
The 1st Respondent’s Brief of Argument is dated 13th May, 2019 and filed on 16th May, 2019, but deemed as properly filed on 17th September, 2019. 1st Respondent’s counsel formulated three issues for determination to wit:
1. Whether based on the preponderance of evidence before the trial Court, the learned trial Judge was right in declaring/granting title to the land in dispute to the plaintiff/1st Respondent (Grounds 1&2)
2. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in admitting exhibit 4 in evidence? (Ground 4)
3. Whether having regards to the circumstance of the case and the evidence before the trial Court, the sum of N10,000,000 (Ten Million Naira only) awarded as general damages against the Appellants and 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents jointly and severally is excessive? (Ground 3)
A careful examination of the issues distilled by both parties reveals that they are substantially the same and cover the controversies presented by the facts of this appeal. I therefore adopt the issues formulated by the Appellants as the issues for determination in this appeal.
In arguing issue one, learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that the 1st Respondent failed to sufficiently prove his claim for declaration of title to the land in dispute before the lower Court, as he failed to satisfactorily establish the root of title of the person from whom he derived his title, having failed to show how Lamido Mustapha acquired the land in dispute.
He relied on the case of Eyo v. Onuoha (2011) 39 WRN Page 1 at page 46, lines 5-25 Ratio 8.
Counsel expatiated on the above by stating that despite the fact that Exhibits 1 and 2 show that Ardo A. Bobboi of Nomtari District Head Office sold the land in dispute on behalf of Lamido Aliyu Mustapha (late) the then Lamido of Adamawa to the 1st Respondent, and the said Kabiru A. Bobboi who testified as PW1 stated that the land belonged to the late Lamido Aliyu Mustapha, who inherited same from his late father Lamido Mustapha, but failed to prove how the latter Lamido Mustapha got the said land.
On issue two, learned counsel for the Appellants argued that the grant of right of occupancy which was tendered, admitted and marked as “Exhibit 4” ought not to have been relied upon to grant title of the land in dispute to the 1st Respondent, and ought to be expunged by the honourable Court, because Exhibit 4 was obtained in anticipation of this case at the trial Court, as seen from the pre-action notice which was dated 23rd May, 2012, while Exhibit 4 was dated 4th October, 2012.
He relied on Section 83(3) of the Evidence Act 2011; Magaji v. Ogele (2012) 50 WRN page 41 at page 102, lines 25-35 Ratio 15; and Magaji v. Ogele (2012) 50 WRN page 41 at page 102, lines 25-35 Ratio 12.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the 1st Respondent in arguing issue one submitted that the 1st Respondent at trial sufficiently adduced evidence in support of his claim to the standard required in civil cases, by producing title documents which show that he purchased the land in dispute from the PW1 and also getting his Vendor, that is PW1 to testify in the matter.
The documents of title tendered by the 1st Respondent in proof of his title are: Sale Agreement between 1st Respondent and PW1 dated 14th January, 2008 (Exhibit 1); Sale Agreement from the office of the District Head of Namtari in favour of the 1st Respondent dated 14th January, 2008 (Exhibit 2); Yola South Local Government Customary Certificate of Occupancy No. YSLG/NAM/0018 in favour of the 1st Respondent (Exhibit 3); and Grant of Right of Occupancy No. ADS/24071/MLS/LAN/50758 dated 4th October, 2012 granted by the 2nd–4th Respondents in favour of the 1st Respondent (Exhibit 4), together with the site plan (Exhibit 4A)
He referred to the case of Aigbobahi v. Aifuwa (2006) ALL FWLR Pt 303 page 202 paras B-C at page 213.
Learned Counsel argued that the 1st Respondent`s case was supported by the 2nd Appellant’s testimony elicited under cross-examination that the Appellants also bought portions of land from the PW1 and the only proof the Appellants tendered for ownership of the land in dispute was that they had been allocated same by the 2nd–4th Respondents upon a purported compulsory acquisition of same from the 1st Respondent, thus shifting the burden of proving valid acquisition to the Appellants, a burden which they failed to discharge.
He relied on: Section 145(2) of the Evidence Act 2011; Nnaemeka Okoye v. Ogugua Nwankwo (2014) ALL FWLR Pt 756 page 471 paras C-F at pages 499-500.
On issue two, learned counsel to the Respondent argued that assuming exhibit 4 ought to be rejected/expunged as posited by the Appellants, absence of the said exhibit will not render the 1st Respondent’s claim unproven as the 1st Respondent tendered four other documents of title, which help establish his claim.
RESOLUTION OF ISSUES ONE AND TWO
It is settled beyond contention that a party who is claiming ownership of land or real property must adduce cogent and credible evidence to show how he is entitled to such land. In other words, he must show how he got title to the land or property in question.
The Supreme Court in the case of DAKOLO & ORS. v. REWANE-DAKOLO & ORS. (2011) LPELR-915(SC) per RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C. (Pp. 23-24, paras. F-D) reiterated the five methods by which a Plaintiff may prove his entitlement to declaration of title to land thus:
“There are five ways in which ownership/title to land may be proved. They are: 1. Proof of traditional evidence; 2. Proof of acts of ownership, acts by persons claiming the land such as selling, leasing, renting out all or part of the land, or farming on it or otherwise utilising the land beneficially such acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time and numerous and positive enough to warrant the inference that he is the true owner; 3. Proof by production of document of title which must be authenticated; 4. Proof of ownership by acts of long possession and enjoyment in respect of the land to which the acts are done; 5. Proof of possession of connected or adjacent land, circumstances rendering it probable that the owner of such connected or adjacent land would in addition be the owner of the land in dispute, may rank also as means of proving ownership of the land in dispute. See: Amajideogu v Ononaku (1988) 2 NWLR pt.78 p.616Piaro v Tenalo 1976 12 SC p31 Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) 9-10 SC p224 Omoregie v. Idugiemwanye (1985) 2 NWLR Pt.5 p.41”
See: BAYO & ANOR v. SULYMAN & ORS (2019) LPELR-47380(CA); EKEZIE & ORS v. TASIE & ORS (2019) LPELR-46451(CA); and YAHAYA v. Haruna (2019) LPELR-47706(CA).
The 1st Respondent herein at the lower Court clearly made use of the third method of proof, by tendering title documents consisting of: Sale Agreement between 1st Respondent and PW1 dated 14th January, 2008 (Exhibit 1); Sale Agreement from the office of the District Head of Namtari in favour of the 1st Respondent dated 14th January, 2008 (Exhibit 2); Yola South Local Government Customary Certificate of Occupancy No. YSLG/NAM/0018 in favour of the 1st Respondent (Exhibit 3); and Grant of Right of Occupancy No. ADS/24071/MLS/LAN/50758 dated 4th October, 2012 granted by the 2nd–4th Respondents in favour of the 1st Respondent (Exhibit 4), together with the site plan (Exhibit 4A), all covering the land he was claiming ownership of, which veracity was established to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge, without any superior document produced by the Appellants. This undoubtedly is enough to establish the Respondent’s title in the absence of a better or superior title on the part of the Appellants.
See: AYANWALE v. ODUSAMI (2011) LPELR-8143(SC); and SURAKATU v. Adekunle (2019) LPELR-46412(CA).
I agree with the 1st Respondent’s submissions to the effect that the fulcrum of the Appellants’ case at trial was that the land in dispute had been revoked/compulsorily acquired by the 2nd to 4th Respondents. There is no doubt that such revocation and subsequent grant of right of occupancy over the land in dispute holds no water as the laid down procedure and conditions for such was not complied with. See: OLOMODA v. MUSTAPHA & ORS (2019) LPELR-46438(SC); ADEGUNLE v. GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE & ORS (2019) LPELR-48013(CA); and BARAYA v. ABDULLAHI (2017) LPELR-43371(CA).
The implication of the above is that issue one is resolved in favour of the 1st Respondent.
With regards to issue two, it is indeed correct to state that the law frowns on the creation or manufacture of documents during the course or in anticipation of litigation. Section 83(3) of the Evidence Act 2011 which prohibits reliance on such evidence provides thus:
“Nothing in this section shall render admissible as evidence any statement made by a person interested at a time when proceedings were pending or anticipated involving a dispute as to any fact which the statement might tend to establish.”
A cursory look at the above provision reveals that what is prohibited by statute is the creation or manufacture by a person of a document during or in anticipation of litigation, it does not prohibit the application for the production of a public document by a party, to officials of government acting in the normal course of their duty, which in the absence of any cogent evidence to the contrary, would be taken as proper. There is no doubt that the 1st Respondent is not the maker of exhibit 4 and as such the above stated principle of law will not in my humble view apply to render the exhibit inadmissible.
See: Olomo v. Ape(2015) 14 NWLR (Pt1478) at 46 page 60 paras G-H; and Lumatron Nigeria Limited & Anor v. First City Monument Bank Plc (2016) LPELR-41409 (CA).
The second issue is also resolved against the Appellants.
ISSUE THREE:
WHETHER THE GENERAL DAMAGES OF TEN MILLION NAIRA (N10,000,000.00) ONLY AWARDED AGAINST THE APPELLANTS AND THE 2ND–4TH RESPONDENTS FOR TRESPASS IS NOT EXCESSIVE AND THEREFORE UNJUSTIFIABLE. (GROUND 3)
Learned counsel for the Appellants argued that assuming the Appellants and 2nd to 4th Respondents committed acts of trespass against the 1st Respondent, the award of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) as general damages by the learned trial Judge is excessive, and does not represent a judicious or judicial exercise of the lower Court’s discretion as the Judge failed to assess the level of damage if any before reaching the decision nor did he base the decision on any principle of law. Learned counsel urged this Court to set aside the award for being excessive.
He relied on: UBA v. Davies (2011) 32 WRN page 119 at page 145-146 lines 30-10; Oduwole v. David West (2010) 28 WRN page 1 at page 19, lines 10-35; GTB Plc v. AG Ekiti State (2013) 21 WRN page 118 at page 152 lines 20-35; and Ajagbe v. Idowu (2011) 37 WRN page 1 at 25, lines 25-30.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the 1st Respondent argued that the award of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) by the trial Court in addition to the N20,000,000.00 (Twenty Million Naira) requested for by the 1st Respondent, is justified as the Appellants trespassed into the 1st Respondent’s land by entering the land in dispute, clearing the land and fencing the disputed land as part of the Appellants’ own land.
Learned counsel submitted that the onus of proving that the award is excessive rests on the Appellants and they have failed to discharge such burden, hence this Court ought not to interfere with the award.
He relied on: Princewell Odikanwa v. Chief Joseph Iheanacho (2010) ALL FWLR Pt 549 page 1179 at page 1191 paras B-D; and Inland Bank (Nig) Plc & 1 Or v. Fishing and Shrimping Co. Ltd (2013) ALL FWLR Pt 675 page 356 at 374 paras C-D.
RESOLUTION OF ISSUE THREE
General damages are damages that the law presumes once a claim has been successfully established and they flow from the type of wrong complained about by the victim. They are compensatory damages for harm that results from the wrong for which a party has sued; that the harm is reasonably expected and need not be alleged or proved.
See: British Airways v. Atoyebi (2014) 13 NWLR (Pt.1424) 253; and Rematon Service Ltd. v. NEM Ins. Plc (2020) 14 NWLR (Pt.1744) 281.
In the case leading to this appeal, there is no doubt that the Appellants had trespassed into the 1st Respondent’s land, an action which necessarily attracts the award of damages.
The grounds upon which an appellate Court would interfere in a trial Court’s award of damages include where the trial Court proceeds upon a wrong principle or on no principle of law at all and makes an award which is apparently unwarranted, extravagant, unreasonable and unconscionably excessive, in comparison with the greatest loss that would possibly flow from the breach of contract in question and without stating the basis of the assessment. See: B.A.L Co. Ltd v. Landmark University (2020) 15 NWLR (Pt.1748) 465 (CA); E.B. Plc, Awo Omamma v. Nwokoro (2012) 14 NWLR (Pt1321) 488.
Another ground upon which an Appellate Court would set aside the award of damages is where the upholding of such an award would amount to double compensation. Where a party has suffered wrong as a result of another’s action, what the law seeks to do is ensure the victim is adequately compensated. Thus where a party has been fully compensated, the law frowns at awarding such party more compensation.
See: Mekwunye v. Emirates Airlines (2019) 9 NWLR (Pt.16770 191; NICON Hotels Ltd v. N.D.C. Ltd (2007) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1051) 237 (CA); and U.T.C. (Nig.) Plc v. Philips (2012) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1295) pg.136 (CA).
A careful examination of the judgment of the lower Court reveals that it first granted the sum of N20,000,000.00 (Twenty Million Naira) as general damages to 1st Respondent, by virtue of the grant of relief “vii” or “7” of the 1st Respondent’s claim. The trial Court then went on to grant general damages in the sum of N10,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) in favour of the 1st Respondent. This to my mind smacks of double compensation which the law frowns on. The learned trial judge having granted relief vii of the 1st Respondent’s claim which relief effectively took care of the damages suffered by the 1st Respondent, there was no basis, no justification for the further award of N10,000,000 as general damages against the Appellants, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents.
The law is indeed trite that in the award of damages, a Court must be mindful of the necessity to ensure that a party is not doubly compensated for the same injury. See Mabamije v. Otto (2016) LPELR–26058 (SC); Agu v. General Oil Ltd (2015) LPELR-24613 (SC); MTN (Nig.) Communication Ltd v. C-Soka (Nig.) Ltd 2018 LPELR-44423 (CA).
Issue three is accordingly resolved in favour of the Appellants.
In the light of the resolution of issue three in favour of the Appellants and issues one and two against the Appellants, the appeal is allowed in part.
The grant of relief vii in the 1st Respondent’s Amended Statement of claim by the trial Court which directed the Appellants herein and the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents to jointly and severally pay to the 1st Respondent as plaintiff the sum of N10,000,000 (Ten Million Naira only) as general damages is hereby set aside.
In summation, the judgment of the lower Court delivered on 19th June, 2017 in Suit No. ADSY/121/2021 except the grant of N10,000,000 (Ten Million Naira) for general damages is affirmed.
Parties to bear their respective costs.
YUSUF ALHAJI BASHIR, J.C.A.: I have read the lead judgment delivered by my Lord JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, JCA. I agree with his reasoning and conclusions entirely.
The sum of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) awarded by the trial Court as general damages in addition to the N20,000,000.00 (Twenty Million Naira) earlier awarded in favour of the 1st Respondent amounts to a double compensation which the law does not allow. It is therefore set aside.
I abide by all other orders made in the lead judgment.
ABDUL-AZEEZ WAZIRI, J.C.A.: His Lordship, Jamilu Yammama Tukur, JCA, has graciously obliged me with a copy of the lead judgment he prepared on this appeal before now. Having perused same, I must say that His Lordship, has ably and painstakingly treated all the salient issues in contention by the respective learned counsel to the parties before arriving at his conclusion that the appeal succeeds except in respect of the grant of the sum of Ten Million Naira (N10,000,000) for general damages which he rightly set aside.
I too join him in allowing the appeal, and affirm the judgment of the lower Court. I equally abide by the order of “cost in the cause” made therein.
Appearances:
N. N. Wayeh, Esq. For Appellant(s)
E. M. Zamgina, Esq., with him, Auwal El-Kabir, Esq., M.S. Baba Esq. and M. A. Umar Senior State Counsel II Adamawa State Ministry of Justice. For Respondent(s)
