MADAM ALICE CHIATOGU AMADI V. CHARLES ORISAKWE
(2005) LCN/3415(SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Friday, January 7, 2005
Case Number: SC. 233/2000
RATIO
APPEAL: WHAT THE SUPREME COURT DOES WITH CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF LOWER COURTS
The law is settled that this court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact made by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal where the findings are reasonably justified and supported by evidence, and where no special circumstances why the court should interfere with the findings is shown or where there is no substantial error apparent on the record of proceedings such as miscarriage of justice or violation of some principles of law or procedure. However, where such findings are shown to be perverse or patently erroneous or where, for example, the court has drawn wrong conclusions from accepted credible evidence adduced before it and a miscarriage will result if they are allowed to remain, the Supreme Court has the duty to interfere. PER AKINTAN, JSC
LAW OF EVIDENCE: HOW TO PROVE THAT DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN EXECUTED
The position of the law is that in resolving the issue of due execution of a document where the alleged maker denies his signature, the course or option opened to the court would be the following:- (i) To receive evidence from the attesting magistrate if there is such an attestation and if it is still possible to call the magistrate; (ii) To hear evidence from a person familiar with the signature of the alleged signatory or who saw him write the signature; (iii) To compare the signature admitted by the alleged signatory to be his own with the one under contention under section 108(1) of the Evidence Act; (iv) To direct the person to sign his signature for the purpose of enabling the court to compare the signature alleged to have been written by him under section 108(2) of the Evidence Act: PER AKINTAN, JSC
JUSTICES:
IDRIS LEGBO KUTIGI JUSTICE,SUPREME COURT
SAMSON ODEMWINGIE UWAIFO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
DAHIRU MUSDAPHER JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IGNATIUS CHUKWUDI PATS-ACHOLONU, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SUNDAY AKINTOLA AKINTAN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
BETWEEN
APPELLANTS
MADAM ALICE CHIATOGU AMADI
AND
RESPONDENTS
1. CHARLES ORISAKWE
2. OLIVER ORISAKWE
3. RISING ORISAKWE
JUDGEMENT
S.A. AKINTAN, JSC:
(Delivering the Leading Judgement)
The dispute that led to this appeal arose over a piece of land situated at 27 Mbaise Road, Owerri in Imo State. The original plaintiff in the case was Lawrence A. Amadi, who died while the trial was on at the High Court but after he had given his evidence before the trial court. The present appellant, Madam Alice Chatogu Amadi, was the wife of the original plaintiff who was substituted for her husband upon the man’s death. The case was instituted at the High Court of Imo State, holding at Owerri, as Suit No. HOW/26/71 and the present respondents were the defendants. The plaintiff’s claim against the defendants, jointly and severally. as set out in paragraph 16 of the statement of claim, is as follows:
“(a) Declaration of title to that piece of land situate at No.27 Mbaise Road, Owerri in the Owerri, Judicial Division as shown in the plan No. MEC/9/91;
(b) One hundred pounds being damages for trespass to the said land; and
(c) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their servants and agents from entering the said land again”.
Pleadings were filed and exchanged and the trial finally took place before Okezie, J. (as he then was). As already stated above, the original plaintiff Lawrence Amadi, gave evidence at the trial and called a witness in support of his case before he died. Four witnesses testified for the defence, two of whom are the 1st and 2nd defendants now respondents who respectively gave evidence as DW2 and DW3.
The plaintiff’s case was that Israel Orisakwe, the father of the defendants (now respondents) leased the piece of land to him in 1942 for 99 years. The lease was in writing and signed by the parties and their witnesses. The plaintiff said he farmed on the land between 1942 and 1947. But in 1947 he built a house on a portion of the land. In 1961, the same man, Israel Orisakwe, agreed to make an outright sale of the same land to him for forty pounds. He paid him the agreed sum and a conveyance was executed in his favour. The parties, including the 1st and 2nd respondents, signed the deed of conveyance, which was admitted as Exhibit A. The plaintiff said the house he built on the land was burnt during the civil war, but that he later rebuilt it and nobody disturbed him while rebuilding the house.
It was in 1970 that the respondents came to ask the plaintiff if he had documents supporting the sale of the land to him because they claimed that they had lost their own. He did not show them his documents. But he told them he was going to search for them. The respondents thereafter entered the land and broke down some of his structures on the land. This was why the plaintiff instituted the action against them.
The only witness for the plaintiff was Innocent Ihejieto (PW1), the Chief Magistrate in charge of Aba. He told the court that he had seen the purchase agreement, Exhibit A, when the parties came to sign it before him. He said the vendor, Israel Orisakwe, and the 2nd respondent signed the document in his presence and that he signed as witness.
The case for the defence was that their father, who died in 1968, did not sell any land to the plaintiff They denied that any of them signed the purchase agreement, Exhibit A, along with their late father. They however admitted that their late father “gave a piece of land to the plaintiff measuring 50ft by 100ft” and that similar size of land was also given to one Ejiogu. The respondents said they made a plan of the land in dispute which was admitted as Exhibit B. The land they admitted was “given to the plaintiff’ by their late father is verged blue on the plan, Exhibit B. The 2nd respondent, who gave the evidence on behalf of the defendants, denied that the signature on Exhibit A was that of his father and that he was not present when the document was signed.
The learned trial Judge rejected the plaintiff’s case and dismissed the claim. On appeal to the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt Division (Katsina-Alu, Rowland and Onalaja, JJ.CA.) also dismissed the appeal. The present appeal is from the decision of the said Court of Appeal delivered in the case on 8th April 1997 in Suit No. CA/E/173/87.
The following three issues were formulated and canvassed in the appellant’s brief in this court:
“1. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in law in holding that the appellant was not entitled to the plot of land measuring 50 feet by 100 feet.
- Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in law in affirming the trial court as to the validity of the Deed of Conveyance, Exhibit A.
- Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in law in holding that the appellant failed to establish with certainty the area of land claimed.”
The complete rejection of the case put across by the appellant and the rejection of the conveyance, Exhibit A, arc the main points canvassed in the first two issues formulated in the appellant’s brief. References are made to portions of the pleadings as well as the evidence led in support by the parties. It is then submitted that the reasons given for the rejection of the deed of conveyance (Exhibit A) which
