IKE & ORS v. CHIAGHANA & ORS
(2022)LCN/16891(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(AWKA JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Wednesday, April 27, 2022
CA/AW/126/2019
Before Our Lordships:
Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme Justice of the Court of Appeal
Frederick Oziakpono Oho Justice of the Court of Appeal
Patricia Ajuma Mahmoud Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
1. VINCENT IKE 2. EUGENE NWANKWO 3. CHARLES ONWUEGBENE 4. CHRISTIAN OGBONNA (FOR THEMSELVES AND ON BEHALF OF MEMBERS OF NTOKO COMMUNITIES) APPELANT(S)
And
1. NNALUE CHIAGHANA 2. EJIOFOR EKE 3. CY NWOKIKE 4. CHAGOZIE MUONYELU (FOR THEMSELVES AND ON BEHALF OF UMUIFEDINMA FAMILY UMUORAMMA VILLAGE, AWKA) RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO
THE POSITION OF LAW ON THE DUTY PLACED ON A PLAINTIFF IN AN ACTION FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND
The first issue as raised relates to the identity of the land in dispute and whether the trial judge was in misapprehension in his findings on same. The primary duty placed on a plaintiff in an action for declaration of title to land is to show the Court clearly the area of land to which his claim relates so that the land can be identified with certainty. In other words, in an action for declaration of title to land, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove title to a defined area to which the declaration can be attached. Where the land being claimed is contained in a Survey Plan, it is the duty of the plaintiff to serve the plan on the defendant to enable him know the land being claimed against him. Such a survey plan must show clearly the dimensions of the land, the boundaries and other features: IDEHEN V OSENWENKHAE (1997) 10 NWLR, PT 525, 358, DADA V DOSUNMU, ZUBAIRU V JOSEPH & ORS (2016) ALL FWLR, PT 853, 1682 and PADA V GALADIMA & ANOR (2018) 3 NWLR, PT 1607, 436. PER MAHMOUD, J.C.A.
The plaintiff should not leave anything to chance to properly identify his land which is the subject of litigation. The settled position of the law is that even where the identity and location of the land is not in dispute, the claimant must in his pleadings and evidence show an identifiable area of land to which his claim relates. See OFUME V NGBEKE (1994) 4 NWLR, PT. 341, 746 and KANKIA V MAIGEMU (2003) 6 NWLR, PT. 817, 496. This is a necessary step as proof of identity of land is sine qua non to the success of the plaintiff’s claim: DADA V DOSUNMU (SUPRA) and PADA V GALADIMA & ANOR (SUPRA). PER MAHMOUD, J.C.A.
THE POSITION OF LAW WHERE INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE IS ADMITTED WITHOUT OBJECTION
The settled position of the law is that where inadmissible evidence is admitted without objection, it is not open to the opposite party to raise objection to its admissibility on appeal. See RAIMI V OGUNDANA & ORS (1986) 3 NWLR, PT 26, 97, NTUKS V NPA (2007) 13 NWLR, PT 1051, 392 and HADIZA & ANOR V MOHAMMED & ANOR (2015 LPELR – 40383 (CA). There are however exceptions to this principle but since that is not applicable in the instant case I will not dwell on it. Suffice it to say that on the strength of the authorities cited, the appellants can no longer raise any objection to the admissibility of Exhibits D1 – D17. Exhibits D18 and D19 were the terms of settlement and the consent judgment obtained pursuant thereto respectively. Objection was raised and overruled by the trial Judge. They are admissible documents. PER MAHMOUD, J.C.A.
PATRICIA AJUMA MAHMOUD, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The plaintiffs/appellants by their statement of claim filed on the 21st August, 2014 claimed against the defendants/respondents the following reliefs:
i. A DECLARATION that the plaintiffs are entitled to right of occupancy over the land in dispute erged PINK in the plaintiffs’ Plan No. EEO/AN/D.031/2013.
ii. N10,000,000 (Ten Million Naira) general damages for trespass to the plaintiffs’ land.
iii. Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, their agents or privies from further trespassing or remaining on the plaintiffs land the subject matter of this suit.
The plaintiffs/appellants’ case is that the land in question belongs to the Ntoko community which they represent. According to them Ntoko, their progenitor begat seven sons to whom he shared the Ntoko land. Ntoko founded the land by deforestation of virgin land and settled thereon since time immemorial without any opposition. The seven sons of Ntoko settled in their respective shares of Ntoko land exercising various acts of ownership over same. These lands have devolved in accordance with the customary rights of inheritance on Ntoko from one generation to the other leading to the present generation of the plaintiffs who have continued to exercise possession of the said land. It was also the case of the plaintiffs that the Anambra state Government following due process acquired the said Ntoko land, verged violet in the plaintiffs’ dispute plan.
The defendants/Respondents on the other hand contented that the land in dispute known as Nwogigala land forms part of the vast area of land of the Respondents’ Umuifedimma Family of Umuoramma Village, Awka and Umuikenanunwa Family of Umuayom Village, Awka which they acquired by conquest when they defeated Ntoko people at the war which arose between them from the killing of an Awka man by an Ntoko man.
In proof of their case the plaintiffs called three witnesses and tendered 14 exhibits marked as Exhibits P1 – P14. The defendants in their defence called two witnesses and tendered 20 exhibits, marked as Exhibits D1 – D20. At the close of evidence, both parties filed, exchanged and adopted their respective addresses. His Lordship, Justice C. A. Emembolu of the Anambra State High Court sitting at Awka in his judgment delivered on the 11th December, 2018 dismissed the Plaintiffs’ case for lacking in merit.
Aggrieved by this decision the appellants by their amended Notice of Appeal filed on the 18th May, 2020 and deemed on the 3rd of February, 2022 appealed to this Court on five grounds without their particular as follows:
GROUND 1
THE High Court erred in misconstruing the Appellants’ survey Plan No. EEO/AN/D.031/2013 which led to a miscarriage of justice against the Appellants when it held as follows:
“Reading the survey Plan, the land verged PINK in the Plaintiff Survey plan is Nwogigala land which the parties agreed is the land in dispute”
GROUND 2
The High Court erred in law after holding as follows: “the plaintiffs have led credible and cogent evidence of traditional history which was not contradicted” in another breathe held as follows: “the Plaintiffs have pleaded evidence of traditional history of how the land devolved from Ntoko to the Plaintiffs. Their traditional history is not in issue.”
GROUND 3
The High Court erred in holding as follows:
“The DW1, a public officer with the Department of Archives Enugu tendered Exhibits D1, D2, D3, D4 without objection from the Plaintiffs’ counsel…. A look at the document show that there was payment and seal showing they were properly re-called and obtained from Achieves Enugu” which occasioned a miscarriage of justice against the Appellants.
GROUND 4
The judgment is against the weight of evidence.
GROUND 5
The trial Court erred in law when it held as follows:
“The Plaintiffs admitted the various suits which they were not aware and some which they called Kangaroo judgment. The option open to the Plaintiffs is to appeal against such consent judgment and other judgments which were not in their favour. They cannot reopen their case on nothing. … I hereby dismiss the case of the plaintiffs as lacking in merit…”
In compliance with the rules of this Court, the parties duly filed and exchanged their respective briefs of argument. At the hearing of the appeal on the 3rd February, 2022, MR. T Maduka, SAN of counsel adopted and relied on the appellants’ brief filed on the 18th May, 2020 and deemed on the 3rd February, 2022 and their reply brief filed on the 2nd February, 2022 and also deemed on the 3rd February, 2022. He urged the Court to allow the appeal and set aside the decision of the lower Court.
On his part, MR. N Ibegbu, SAN of counsel adopted and relied on the respondents’ brief filed on the 13th October, 2020 but consequentially deemed as properly filed on the 3rd February, 2022. He urged the Court to dismiss the appeal.
The appellants distilled three issues for determination from the five grounds of appeal as follows:
ISSUE 1
Whether the learned trial judge was not in grave error when he held that the parties are in agreement as to the identity of the land in dispute and thereby came to a perverse decision that is unsupportable by pleadings and evidence led at the trial which has occasioned miscarriage of justice. (Distilled from Ground 1)
ISSUE 2
Whether the trial Court was right to have dismissed this suit having found that the Plaintiffs/Appellants led credible and cogent evidence of traditional history which were not contradicted? (Distilled from grounds 2 and 4).
ISSUE 3
Whether the learned trial judge was right in admitting and acting on Exhibits D1 –D19 when the conditions precedent for their admission as Exhibits had not been met and even if they are admissible whether the said documents have any bearing on the case before the trial Court? (Distilled from grounds 3 and 5)
The Respondents also formulated three issues for determination thus:
1. Whether the learned trial Judge erred in law by holding that:
“Reading the Survey Plan, the land verged pink in the Survey plan is Nwogigala land which the parties agree is the land in dispute”. And misconstrued the Appellants Survey Plan No. EEO/AN/D.031/2013 (Formulated from the Amended Ground 1)
2. Whether the learned trial Judge was right to have dismissed the Appellants’ case after stating that credible and cogent evidence of traditional history was not contradicted, but did they prove cogent acts of ownership and possession in support thereof. (Formulated from Grounds 2 and 4 of the Amended Grounds of Appeal).
3. Whether the learned trial Judge was right to have admitted Exhibits “D1”. “D19” and did the documents have any bearing on the case before the trial Court? (formulated from Grounds 3 and 5 of the Amended Grounds of Appeal).
I shall adopt the three issues formulated by the appellants for the resolution of this appeal. In arguing issue (1) the learned senior counsel referred to the findings of the trial Court on the identity of the land in dispute thus:
“The land in dispute in this case is Nwogigala land, as admitted by the parties…”
Counsel contended that the above determination of the identity of the land in dispute by the trial Court is not borne out of the testimony of PW2 and Exhibit P1 and is therefore perverse. That this apparent misunderstanding of the land in dispute by the trial Court led not only to a dismissal of the case but also occasioned a miscarriage of justice to the appellants. Counsel also submitted that the trial Court was in grave error when he held that parties are in agreement on the identity of the land in dispute. He urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the appellants.
On issue (2), the learned Senior Advocate submitted that the appellants through the testimonies of PW1 and PW3 led credible, cogent and crucial evidence in support of the Appellants’ traditional history. That this fact was confirmed by the trial Judge when he found in his judgment as follows:
“The plaintiffs have led credible and cogent evidence of traditional history which was not contradicted.”
The learned silk contended that having so found, it was not open to the trial Court to have dismissed the claim of the plaintiffs. That the proper order for the Court to make in such circumstances is one entering judgment in favour of the appellants. He urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the appellants.
Arguing on issue (3) the learned Senior Advocate submitted that Exhibits D1 – D19 are inadmissible documents as the conditions precedent to their admission had not been met. Counsel also argued that assuming the documents were admissible, they have no bearing on the instant case and therefore irrelevant. That the trial Court acted in error in relying albeit heavily on Suit No. 20 of 1911, case 111/1952, case No. A/6c/95, suit No. A/208/2000, Suit No. A/201/95 and Suit No. A/33/95 which do not constitute estoppel in the instant suit. Counsel urged the Court to also resolve this issue in favour of the appellants, allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the lower Court.
Reacting to these submissions, the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents on issue (1) submitted that the finding of the trial Court on the identity of the land in dispute is not perverse. That this finding is admitted by the appellants in paragraph 7 (a) of their Amended Reply to their Statement of Defence. Counsel contended that the appellants never pleaded nor proved the other villages that they alleged formed part of the land in dispute, who owned them and their boundary features. That the appellants having failed to prove the identity of the land in dispute with certainty and satisfactorily their case was bound to and rightly failed. Counsel prayed the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Respondents.
On issue (2), the learned Senior Advocate for the Respondents submitted that the trial Court was clear that the traditional history of the appellants was not in issue and the appellants deliberately quoted the trial Judge out of context.
Responding on issue (3) the learned Silk for the Respondents submitted that Exhibits D1 – D4 were properly admitted by the trial Judge having complied with Section 7 of the Public Archives Act as confirmed by the testimony of DW1, the public officer from the Department of Archives, Enugu who tendered Exhibits D1, D2, D3 and D4. Counsel referred to Section 168 (1) of the Evidence Act 2011 to further contend that since the documents were produced from proper custody there should be presumption of regularity in their favor. On the exhibits not having a bearing on the case, Counsel urged the Court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the decision of the trial High Court.
Before embarking on a resolution of the issues as raised, it is necessary to determine the competence of the reply brief. The introduction of this reply brief gives it away thus:
“upon service of the Appellants’ Brief of Argument on them, the Respondents filed the Respondents’ Brief of Argument on 13th October, 2020, and in the said Respondents’ Brief they raised issues which require the Appellants’ response.”
This shows that this is just a rehash of the appellants’ arguments in their brief. This position is strengthened by the three sub headings in the brief. This prompts the question whether or not this reply brief is competent. The three sub-headings are: “1. Identity of the land in Dispute; 2. Traditional history of the Appellants and 3. Admissibility of Exhibits D1 – D19”. These sub headings form the three issues raised and argued by the appellants in their brief. It does not need a soothsayer therefore to know that these cannot be new points or issues raised by the Respondents to which the appellants are entitled to a reply within the meaning of ORDER 19(5) (1) of the Rules of Court, 2021. This Court and indeed the Apex Court have reiterated in a host of judgments that a reply brief is not an opportunity to re-emphasize or re-echo the arguments in the appellant’s brief but rather a chance to respond only to new issues raised in the respondent’s brief. See MOZIE & ORS V MBAMALU & ORS (2006) 15 NWLR, PT. 1003, 466, OGUANUHU & 7 ORS V CHIEGBOKA (2013) 6 NWLR, PT 135, 588, KOMOLAFE V FRN (2018) LPELR – 4496 (SC) and ORIYOMI V THE STATE (2020) LPELR – 51009 (CA). Based on these authorities, the appellants’ nine-page reply brief filed on the 2nd February, 2022 but deemed on 3rd February, 2022 is hereby discountenanced for being offensive to ORDER 19(5) (1) of the Rules of Court 2021.
The first issue as raised relates to the identity of the land in dispute and whether the trial judge was in misapprehension in his findings on same. The primary duty placed on a plaintiff in an action for declaration of title to land is to show the Court clearly the area of land to which his claim relates so that the land can be identified with certainty. In other words, in an action for declaration of title to land, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove title to a defined area to which the declaration can be attached. Where the land being claimed is contained in a Survey Plan, it is the duty of the plaintiff to serve the plan on the defendant to enable him know the land being claimed against him. Such a survey plan must show clearly the dimensions of the land, the boundaries and other features: IDEHEN V OSENWENKHAE (1997) 10 NWLR, PT 525, 358, DADA V DOSUNMU, ZUBAIRU V JOSEPH & ORS (2016) ALL FWLR, PT 853, 1682 and PADA V GALADIMA & ANOR (2018) 3 NWLR, PT 1607, 436. The Appellants tendered a survey plan, Exhibit P1. By their pleadings and evidence, the land in dispute is said to be verged pink. I have taken a hard look at the said Exhibit P1, particularly the portion verged pink. These following are written in the space verged pink, some more bold than others:
1. OKWU LAND OF NGOGIGALA VILLAGE NTOKO IN DISPUTE.
2. NWOGILALA VILLAGE (written across the entire space).
3. Plantian tree planted and harvested by Peter Nwude of Nwogigala Ntoko
4. Farm Houses
5. Farm of Eugene Okoli.
6. Palm Plantation of Joshua Ilo Ngogigala Village Ntoko.”
The quarrel of the appellants is that the trial Court found that:
“Reading the survey plan, the land verged PINK in the plaintiff survey plan is Nwogigala land which the parties agreed is the land in dispute.”
The appellants in their reply to the statement of defence stated thus:
“Nwogigala land which is Nwogigala Village, Ntoko is part of the land in dispute in this suit. The land in dispute include other lands in other villages of Ntoko and the entire land in dispute is verged PINK in the plaintiffs’ dispute plan NO. EEO/AN/D.031/2013.” (Underlining mine)
Like I observed, the entries in the portion of Exhibit P1 verged PINK is what I have written out above. That the trial Court called it ‘Ngogigala land’ does not remove from the fact that the land in dispute is the portion verged PINK in Exhibit P1 as found by the trial Court. Clearly she was referring to plaintiffs’ survey plan. I may be colour blind but “OKWU LAND OF NGOGIGALA VILLAGE NTOKO IN DISPUTE” is part of what is written in the portion verged PINK in Exhibit P1. What is more, it is instructive that in giving evidence in chief, PW2 the surveyor who made the survey plan Exhibit P1 never spoke to the exhibit. He simply adopted his written deposition as his evidence in chief pursuant to which he adopted the plan in evidence as an exhibit. He should have been shown the exhibit after its admission in evidence and led to show to the trial Court on the exhibit the boundaries and exact delineations of the land in dispute, who are the neighbors even from the plan, etc. This is generally the attitude of parties to exhibits tendered in Court. They will tender it and end of story. This is what amounts to dumping exhibits on the Court. A party cannot dump an exhibit on the Court and complain of the interpretation given thereto by the Court. Good advocacy demands that once a document is admitted in evidence, counsel will take the witness through it to explain every detail to the Court to make it clear and understandable especially documents of a technical nature such as this. In this era of written advocacy, counsel would do well to lead their witnesses in evidence to explain documents admitted in evidence to the Court. This is particularly necessary as certain explanations cannot be made in a written deposition.
The plaintiff should not leave anything to chance to properly identify his land which is the subject of litigation. The settled position of the law is that even where the identity and location of the land is not in dispute, the claimant must in his pleadings and evidence show an identifiable area of land to which his claim relates. See OFUME V NGBEKE (1994) 4 NWLR, PT. 341, 746 and KANKIA V MAIGEMU (2003) 6 NWLR, PT. 817, 496. This is a necessary step as proof of identity of land is sine qua non to the success of the plaintiff’s claim: DADA V DOSUNMU (SUPRA) and PADA V GALADIMA & ANOR (SUPRA).
The appellants herein have alleged that the error of the trial judge that they alluded to has occasioned a miscarriage of justice. What is the error that occasioned a miscarriage of justice, is it the adoption of the portion of the land claimed by the plaintiffs in their survey map verged PINK, is it calling the land NWOGIGALA or the fact that his Lordship opined that both parties are agreed? Whichever of the positions the appellants find offensive, the fact remains that the appellants never led their Surveyor in evidence to take the Court through Exhibit P1 as it were. The question remained unanswered by the appellant as posed by the Respondents as to the names of the other villages that make up the land in dispute other than ‘Nwogigala land’ as found by the trial Court. Indeed, I find no substance in the contention of the appellants under issue (1) as especially they were unable to show how the alleged finding occasioned a miscarriage of justice to them. If indeed there are more villages on the portion verged PINK in Exhibit P1 then that portion is not covered by the judgment of the Court and remained the property of the appellants since they admit that the respondents’ claim does not cover other villages other than Nwogigala! In sum, I resolve this issue in favour of the Respondents.
Issue (2) interrogates whether the trial Court spoke from both sides of its mouth, i.e. found that the appellants led ‘credible and cogent evidence of traditional history which were (sic) not contradicted’ yet it dismissed the plaintiffs/appellants’ claim. For clarity, I reproduce the portion of the judgment where the alleged ‘double speak’ or contradiction by the trial Court was made at page 721 of the record:
“…The plaintiffs in their pleadings and evidence of parties admitted all the various suit (sic) instituted in respect to the land in dispute. In ALL THE CASES THE JUDGMENT WAS NOT IN FAVOUR OF THE PLAINTIFFS. The issue in this case is not whether the plaintiffs’ traditional history is reliable. The plaintiffs have led credible and cogent evidence of traditional history which was not contradicted. It is trite that a party relying in (sic) traditional history such party must plead and establish how that land was founded, who founded the land, the particulars of the intervening owners through which the plaintiff claims the disputed land. The plaintiffs have pleased evidence of traditional history of how the land devolved from Ntokor to the plaintiffs. Their traditional history is not in issue. The plaintiffs admitted the various suit (sic) which they were not aware and some which they called kangaroo judgment. The option open to the plaintiff is to appeal against such consent judgment (sic) and other judgments which were not in their favour. They cannot reopen their case on nothing. High Court cannot sit in (sic) appeal over any judgment of a Court of concurrent jurisdiction that is a High Court. In Suit NO. 113/51 – 53 which was non-suited on appeal, there is no evidence that the plaintiffs appealed …”
It is crystal clear from this long quote of the trial Court that his Lordship was not by the alleged statement making any direct and positive finding of fact in favour of the plaintiffs based on the evidence before him. What the trial Court is saying but which the appellants do not want to hear is that yes the plaintiffs have given a credible traditional history of how this land devolved from Ntokor to them. But more than that, the issue is about the numerous suits in respect of this inherited land which were all given against the plaintiffs/appellants. The only way the appellants can establish that the judgment is perverse is to prove that these suits were not in respect of the same land, were all in favour of the appellants or that the judgments in those suits are not valid and subsisting. The failure of the appellants to attack these findings of the trial Court in respect of these suits strengthens the inference that his Lordship’s findings are unimpeachable. This is why the appellants can only direct their attack on Exhibits D1 – D19. Clearly therefore, this issue ought to and is hereby resolved against the appellants and in favour of the respondents.
This leads us naturally to the last issue. The objection of the appellants to Exhibits D1 – 19 is two pronged: that they are inadmissible, the conditions precedent to their admission not having been fulfilled and secondly that even if they are admissible they have no bearing on the case. Exhibits D1 – D4 were admitted through DW1. DW1 is a public officer from the Department of Archives, Enugu. Exhibits D1, D2, D3 and D4 were tendered and admitted in evidence through him without objection. These documents are public documents and legally admissible. The only rider is that the law requires that only certified copies of such documents are admissible. DW1 testified that Exhibits D1 – D4 were properly certified, a position being contested by the appellants. The issue whether Exhibits D1, D2, D3 and D4 were properly certified was answered adequately by the trial Judge. I reproduce his holding in answer to this contention thus:
“The DW1 a public officer with the Department of Archives Enugu tendered Exhibits “D1”, “D2”, “D3”, and “D4” without objection from the Plaintiffs’ Counsel. He was on subpoena (Exhibit “D5) under cross-examination, he admitted that a person who comes to Archives to look for document pays and also pays for Certification of the Document. He averred that payment for the search is no! (sic) endorsed on the exhibits but a receipt of payment is issued, tin’ endorsement is on the receipt DW1 stated that there is seal on the documents and treasury receipt.
A look at the document show that there was payment and the seal showed they were properly recalled and obtained from Archives Enugu. Exhibits “D4” is judgment in case No. 62/27 taken by the Defendants against the Umuikenanunwa family to enforce their joint ownership of Okpalauzo Land Agu Ntokor.”
Assuming without conceding that Exhibits D1 – D4 were not properly certified, I uphold the submission of the respondents’ counsel that the doctrine of regularity should operate in favour of the documents pursuant to Section 168(1) and (2) of the Evidence Act, 2011. This is especially do as the Respondents complied with Section 7 of the Public Archives Act, 2004. The section provides that for any document from the Public Archives to be receivable in evidence and be treated as the original it must be certified to be a true copy by the Director of Public Archives or by an officer of the department of Public Archives duly authorized and carry an official seal of the Director of Public Archives, which alone shall be proof of the authenticity of the document. By the accepted cannon of construction, this special rather than the general provision is applicable. In other words, Sections 104 and 105 of the Evidence Act, 2004 are not applicable to Exhibits D1 – D4. By the findings of the trial Court quoted earlier in this judgment, the provisions of Section 7 of the Public Archives Act were complied with by the respondents.
Exhibit D6 – D17, were admitted without objection from counsel to the plaintiffs. They are not documents that are inadmissible legally. They are admissible pursuant to the fulfillment of certain conditions. The settled position of the law is that where inadmissible evidence is admitted without objection, it is not open to the opposite party to raise objection to its admissibility on appeal. See RAIMI V OGUNDANA & ORS (1986) 3 NWLR, PT 26, 97, NTUKS V NPA (2007) 13 NWLR, PT 1051, 392 and HADIZA & ANOR V MOHAMMED & ANOR (2015 LPELR – 40383 (CA). There are however exceptions to this principle but since that is not applicable in the instant case I will not dwell on it. Suffice it to say that on the strength of the authorities cited, the appellants can no longer raise any objection to the admissibility of Exhibits D1 – D17. Exhibits D18 and D19 were the terms of settlement and the consent judgment obtained pursuant thereto respectively. Objection was raised and overruled by the trial Judge. They are admissible documents.
The other contention of the appellants that Exhibits D1 – D19 have no bearing on the case before the Court is of no moment. Evidence is admissible and relevant if it is relevant to the fact in issue. The trial Court effectively showed the connection between all the exhibits and the case. Exhibits D1- D19 were properly tendered and admitted by the trial Court. They were all relevant to the fact in issue before the Court and therefore admissible. The trial Judge properly admitted them. I again resolve this issue in favour of the Respondents against the appellants.
Having resolved all the issues against the appellants, it stands to reason that this appeal is bereft of merit. It fails and is accordingly dismissed.
I make no order as to costs.
CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, J.C.A.: I read in draft the leading judgment of my learned brother, P. A. MAHMOUD, JCA just delivered.
I agree that the appeal is devoid of any merit and should be dismissed.
My learned brother dealt adequately with all the issues raised and I endorse his judgment as mine.
I also make no order as to costs.
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO, J.C.A.: I read the draft of the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, PATRICIA AJUMA MAHMOUD, JCA and I am in agreement with the reasoning and conclusions reached in dismissing the appeal as unmeritorious. I abide by the consequential orders made thereto.
Appearances:
MR. T. MADUKA, SAN, with him, MR. C. A. NWOKIKE For Appellant(s)
MR. N. IBEGBU, SAN, with him, MR. I OBIAKOR For Respondent(s)
