MOJEED YUSUF & ORS V. ALHAJI GANIYU AKANDE & ORS.
(2011)LCN/4424(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Tuesday, the 29th day of March, 2011
CA/I/120/2006
RATIO
DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND: DUTY IMPOSED ON A PLAINTIFF WHO CLAIMS A DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND
A Plaintiff who claims a declaration of title to land has the duty to prove his title by credible evidence, not withstanding any weakness in the defence unless the case of the defendant actually supports the Plaintiffs’ claim. See the cases of AKINDURO V. ALAYA (2007) 15 N.W.L.R. Part 1057 at 312, ODUNZE V. NWOSU (2007) 13 N.W.L.R. Part 1050 at page 1, OGUNJEMILA V. AJIBADE (2010) 11 N.W.L.R. Page 559 at 581 paras C-E, ADEBAKIN V. ODUJEBE (1972) 6 S.C. page 208 and BALOGUN V. YUSUF (2010) 9 N.W.L.R page 515 at 533 paras F-G. This position was restated by the Supreme Court in the case of AROMIRE V. AWOYEMI (1972) 1 ALL N.L.R. page 101 at 112-113 where it said: “The Plaintiff claimed that they were trespassers but assuming they were, indeed the Plaintiff in order to evict them must show a better title and cannot succeed in doing so by canvassing a title which itself was demonstrated to be effective. The learned trial Judge observed in a number of passages that the Appellants had not proved their title or that the land is dispute fall within exhibit E. On the strength of the authorities, the Plaintiff’s title must first be considered and decided upon before a consideration of the title of the defendant arises.” PER MODUPE FASANMI, J.C.A.
CLAIM OF TITLE TO LAND: WAYS BY WHICH A CLAIMANT OF TITLE TO LAND MAY ESTABLISH HIS TITLE
A claimant of title to land may do so through any of the following recognized five ways: (1) By traditional evidence (2) By production of document of title duly authenticated and executed. (3) By act of ownership extending over sufficient length numerous and positive enough so as to make it reasonable to enter that the person so exercising such right owns the land. (4) By acts of long possession and the enjoyment thereof and (5) Proof of possession of land connected or adjacent to the land disputed in such a way that it is probable that the person who owns such connected land actually owns the land in dispute. See the locus classics case of IDUNDUN V. OKUMAGBA (1976) 9-10 S.C. page 227, YUSUF V. ADEGOKE (2007) 11 N.W.L.R. Part 1045 at 332. PER MODUPE FASANMI, J.C.A.
EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE: WHETHER IT IS THE DUTY OF THE TRIAL COURT TO EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE APPELLATE COURT IS IN A VANTAGE POSITION AS THE TRIAL COURT TO EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD
The duty of evaluation of evidence is pre-eminently that of the trial Court which alone has the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses in the course of their testimonies. The appellate Court does not have that benefit of seeing and hearing the witnesses in the course of their testimonies. It would not ordinarily interfere with the findings of facts of the trial Court and this is particularly so where the evaluation involves the assessment of the credibility of witnesses. Where, however from the nature of the evidence, the evaluation would not entail demeanor and credibility of witnesses and simply involves the examination of oral and documentary evidence and the making of necessary deductions therefrom, the appellate Court is in a vantage position as the trial Court to evaluate the evidence on record see AKPULE V. AGBEOTU (1999) 10 N.W.L.R Part 621 at 107, BAGHA V. TIZA (2000) 4 N.W.L.R. Part 652 at 193; TINUBU V. KHALIL & DIBBO TRANS LTD (2000) 11 N.W.L.R. Part 677 at 171; MOGAJI V. ODOFIN (1978) 4 S.C at 91. PER MODUPE FASANMI, J.C.A.
WRITING OF JUDGMENT: CONTENT OF A JUDGMENT OF A COURT OF LAW
A judgment must demonstrate in full a dispassionate consideration of all issues raised, canvassed and show the result of that exercise. However let me reiterate the view that there is no specific format prescribed for writing a judgment. It must meet some minimum standards. It must state briefly the relief’s claimed the relevant facts, arguments and findings of the judge. See the cases of OKULATE V. AWOSANYA (2000) 2 N.W.L.R. Part 646 page 530, UDENGWU V. UZUEGBU (2003) 13 N.W.L.R. Part 836 at 136, IBORI V. AGBI (2004) 6 N.W.L.R. Part 868 at 78, USIOBAIFO V. USIOBAFO (2005) 3 NWLR Part 913 at 665. The reasons for these findings need not be elaborate. See the cases of AMALA V. THE STATE (2004) 12 N.W.L.R part 888 at 520 and NWANKUDU V. IBETOR (2011) 2 N.W.L.R. Part 1231 page 209 at 228 paras D-E. PER MODUPE FASANMI, J.C.A.
ACADEMIC EXERCISE: ATTITUDE OF THE COURTS TOWARDS ACADEMIC EXERCISE
A court will not involve itself in a mere academic exercise. See OLALE V. EKMEHENDU (1989) 4 N.W.L.R. Part 115 page 326 at 344. PER MODUPE FASANMI, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
STANLEY SHENKO ALAGOA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MODUPE FASANMI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
MOJEED YUSUF
MR. SALAWU ILE-IBEJI
TIJANI AJIBOLA – Appellant(s)
AND
ALHAJI GANIYU AKANDE
ALHAJI ADIAMO
PASTOR BABAOPE – Respondent(s)
MODUPE FASANMI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of an Oyo State High Court sitting at Ibadan delivered on the 10th of Nov. 2004. The Respondent who was the Plaintiff at the lower court instituted proceedings against the Appellants claiming the following reliefs:
(i) Declaration that the Plaintiff is entitled to a Statutory Right of Occupancy in respect of land situate and being at along Express Road near Podo Village, Ibadan bounded by the Lagos-Ibadan express road and measuring 3,053 hectares.
(ii) Declaration that the transfer of part of the said piece of land by the 1st-3rd and 5th Defendants to the 4th Defendant is unlawful, illegal null and void.
(iii) Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants whether by themselves, their servants, agents and/or privies otherwise howsoever from committing further acts of trespass or disturbing the peaceful possession of the Plaintiff in respect of the land situate and being at express road, near Podo Village, Ibadan.
In proof of his claims, Plaintiff/Respondent called three witnesses including the Respondent while the Appellants who were Defendants at the lower court called eight witnesses.
The Plaintiff/Respondent case was that he bought a piece of land which is seven and half acres from Kongbari family in 1977. A sale agreement was executed in his favour but however the Appellants disturbed his peaceful possession sometimes in 1998. He gave the following people as his boundary men:
(1) Yusuf Laniba Family
(2) Falana Family
(3) Ile-Ibeji Family
(4) Lagos/Ibadan Express Road.
In proof of his assertion, he tendered exhibits PA and PC which were the survey plan and also a purchase receipt agreement to show evidence of purchase of the said land. He called the Mogaji of the Kongbari family (PW3) who gave cogent evidence to show that the land was actually sold to the Respondent by his family P.W.2 who is a member of the Kongbari family and also buttressed the sale made to the Respondent.
The Appellants claim however was that the land was sold to them by the Ile-Ibeji family. Even thought the Mogaji of the family was said to be alive, he was not called to give evidence in favour of the Appellants and none of the Appellants could tender any purchase receipt or agreement to buttress their evidence of ownership. Instead only the 2nd Appellant tendered an agreement purportedly made by the Ile-Ibeji family without calling any member of the said family to give evidence in his favour.
At the close of the case, the court gave judgment in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent on the 10th of November, 2004. Dissatisfied with the judgment, Appellants filed their notice of appeal dated 10th of February, 2005 to this court and with the leave of this court granted on 18/1/17 Appellant filed four additional grounds of appeal.
Pursuant to the rules of this court Appellant filed his brief of argument on the 31st of January, 2007 while the 1st Respondent’s brief is dated and filed on 23rd March, 2007.
At the hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for the Appellants adopts and relies on his brief of argument. 1st Respondent’s Counsel adopts and relies on his brief of argument. The court’s record showed that 2nd Respondent was served with the hearing notice of the appeal on 11/2/11. He did not show-up and did not file any brief. Learned Counsel for the Appellants distilled two issues for determination thus:
(a) Whether or not the Respondents have discharged the burden on them having regard to the pleadings and evidence before the court Grounds 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the appeal.
(b) Whether the Appellants were given fair hearing in this case. Ground 5
Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent adopts the issues formulated by the Appellants in their brief. The appeal will be determined on the two issues formulated by the Appellants.
Issue One
Whether or not the Respondents have discharged the burden on them having regard to pleadings and evidence before the Court.
Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that in an action for declaration of title to land, the onus lies on the party claiming title to satisfy the court that he is entitled on the evidence brought by him to the declaration claimed. He relied on the case of OWHONDA V. EKPECHI (2003) F.W.L.R, Part 181 page 1565 S.C ratio 4. Mere mention of names or that the parties know the extent of the large area of the land is not enough. He referred to the cases of TEMILE V. AWENI (2001) F.W.L.R. Part 62 at page 1937, BABALOLA V. ALAWOROKO (2001) VOLUME 32 M.J.S.C and EPIO V. AIGBEDION 1972 10 S.C at page 53. Appellants contended further that the Respondents having pleaded the names of the boundary men, it was for the Respondents to call them as it was not enough to give a viva voce evidence of the pleadings in the statement of claim. It was further submitted that the Respondents were not, if they were on the land, in any exclusive possession of the land in dispute because they admitted in their pleadings that the Appellants maintained a church and a quarry on the land. Both sides relied on traditional history as to the boundary of the land settled on by their ancestors vis-a-vis the boundary claimed by the Appellants. The learned trial Judge ought to have reverted to the facts in respect of the recent acts of ownership on the land as established by evidence and see which of the competing histories is more probable.
He argued that the learned trial Judge did not properly evaluate the evidence of the parties before him. It is not enough for the lower court just to state on the record that he has reviewed without stating what he reviewed and why he arrived at the irresistible conclusion “that the Respondents/Plaintiffs had proved their case with a high degree of evidence”.
Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the learned trial Judge failed to make definite findings of fact and any judgment that evolves from such exercise will to that extent be vitiated. He relied on the cases of GEORGE V. GEORGE (1964) 1 All N.L.R. page 1376 at 140, OKPIRI V. JONAH (1961) 1 All N.L.R. page 102 and SHELL BP V. COLE (1978) 3 S.C. at page 183. He urged the court to hold that there had been a miscarriage of justice in the failure of the learned trial Judge to make proper evaluation of the evidence before the court. He urged the court to resolve the issue in favour of the Appellants.
Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent submitted that the Respondents case was that he bought Seven and half 7 ‘bd acres of land from the Kongbari family. In proof of this, he tendered exhibit “PC” which is the land purchase agreement executed in his favour by the Kongbari family. Respondent also tendered a Survey Plan exhibit “PA” which also attested to his ownership of the said land. Respondent called P.W.3 who is the Mogaji of the Kongbari family who testified as to the sale made to the Plaintiff. Respondent gave evidence of possession in recent times by showing that he had farmers on the land and was also clearing other portions of the land regularly. All these credible evidence given and the documents tendered in support are sufficient to prove a declaration of title to land. Title to land can be proved in five ways as enunciated in AYANWALE V. ATANDA (1988) 1 N.W.L.R. Part 68 at page 1.
On the other hand, he argued further that Appellant’s case was manifestly unsupportable and the Court cannot be asked to rely on it:
Appellant did not show any document of title but left his case to mere conjectures which the court cannot rely upon. Respondent’s Counsel further submits on the complaint of the Appellants about the evaluation of the evidence by the trials Judge that it is not how lengthy the evaluation runs that is relevant. What is relevant is how cogent the evaluation was.
The trial court having reviewed the evidence was right to have given judgment in favour of the Respondent. Learned Counsel for the Respondent urged the court to resolve issue one in favour of the Respondents.
A Plaintiff who claims a declaration of title to land has the duty to prove his title by credible evidence, not withstanding any weakness in the defence unless the case of the defendant actually supports the Plaintiffs’ claim. See the cases of AKINDURO V. ALAYA (2007) 15 N.W.L.R. Part 1057 at 312, ODUNZE V. NWOSU (2007) 13 N.W.L.R. Part 1050 at page 1, OGUNJEMILA V. AJIBADE (2010) 11 N.W.L.R. Page 559 at 581 paras C-E, ADEBAKIN V. ODUJEBE (1972) 6 S.C. page 208 and BALOGUN V. YUSUF (2010) 9 N.W.L.R page 515 at 533 paras F-G.
This position was restated by the Supreme Court in the case of AROMIRE V. AWOYEMI (1972) 1 ALL N.L.R. page 101 at 112-113 where it said:
“The Plaintiff claimed that they were trespassers but assuming they were, indeed the Plaintiff in order to evict them must show a better title and cannot succeed in doing so by canvassing a title which itself was demonstrated to be effective. The learned trial Judge observed in a number of passages that the Appellants had not proved their title or that the land is dispute fall within exhibit E. On the strength of the authorities, the Plaintiff’s title must first be considered and decided upon before a consideration of the title of the defendant arises.”
A claimant of title to land may do so through any of the following recognized five ways:
(1) By traditional evidence
(2) By production of document of title duly authenticated and executed.
(3) By act of ownership extending over sufficient length numerous and positive enough so as to make it reasonable to enter that the person so exercising such right owns the land.
(4) By acts of long possession and the enjoyment thereof and
(5) Proof of possession of land connected or adjacent to the land disputed in such a way that it is probable that the person who owns such connected land actually owns the land in dispute. See the locus classics case of IDUNDUN V. OKUMAGBA (1976) 9-10 S.C. page 227, YUSUF V. ADEGOKE (2007) 11 N.W.L.R. Part 1045 at 332.
In the instant case, Plaintiff/Respondent called 3 witnesses including himself to prove his title to the land he bought from Kogbari family in 1997 while the Appellant called eight witnesses. As stated earlier, being a land matter, the plaintiff at the lower Court has to prove by credible evidence his case. Both parties relied on traditional histories in proving their case. The learned trial Judge must have formed his opinion on the demeanor of the witnesses while they were giving evidence.
The learned trial Judge delivered a two page judgment on the 10th of November, 2004 at pages 140-141 of the record thus:
JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff’s claim against the defendant as the writ of summons and as repeated in paragraph 27 of the Statement of Claim is as follows:
(i) DECLARATION that the Plaintiffs is entitled to Statutory Right of Occupancy in respect of land situate and being at along express Road, near Podo Village, Ibadan bounded by the Lagos-Ibadan Express Road and measuring 3,053 Hectares.
(ii) DECLARATION that the transfer of part of the said piece of land by the 1st-3rd and 5th defendants to the 4th defendant is unlawful, illegal, null and void.
(iii) PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the defendants whether by themselves, their servants, agents and/or privies otherwise howsoever from committing further acts of trespass or disturbing the peaceful possession of the Plaintiff in respect of the land situate and being at Express Road, near Podo Village, Ibadan.
In proof of their case the plaintiff filed amended statement of claim. The defendants filed their statement of defence. The Plaintiff called witnesses to prove his case and the defendant also called oral evidence in defence of their cases.
I have received the pieces of evidence on record and I will not be able to read all the evidence which I have received but suffice it to say that the evidence is on record. Having reviewed the evidence I come to irresistible conclusion that the plaintiff has proved his case with high degree of evidence satisfactorily in proof of his case. I reject the defence of all the defendants.
I therefore give judgment in favour of the plaintiff the following terms:
(i) Declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to Statutory Right of Occupancy in respect of land situates and being at along express road, near Podo Village, Ibadan bounded by the Lagos-Ibadan Express Road and measuring 3,053 Hectares.
(ii) Declaration that the transfer of part of the said piece of land by the 1st-3rd defendants to the 4th defendants is unlawful, illegal, null and void.
(iii) Perpetual Injunction restraining the defendants whether by themselves, their servants, agents and/or privies otherwise howsoever from committing further acts of trespass or disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in respect to the land situate and being at Express Road, near Podo Village, Ibadan.
The duty of evaluation of evidence is pre-eminently that of the trial Court which alone has the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses in the course of their testimonies. The appellate Court does not have that benefit of seeing and hearing the witnesses in the course of their testimonies. It would not ordinarily interfere with the findings of facts of the trial Court and this is particularly so where the evaluation involves the assessment of the credibility of witnesses. Where, however from the nature of the evidence, the evaluation would not entail demeanor and credibility of witnesses and simply involves the examination of oral and documentary evidence and the making of necessary deductions therefrom, the appellate Court is in a vantage position as the trial Court to evaluate the evidence on record see AKPULE V. AGBEOTU (1999) 10 N.W.L.R Part 621 at 107, BAGHA V. TIZA (2000) 4 N.W.L.R. Part 652 at 193; TINUBU V. KHALIL & DIBBO TRANS LTD (2000) 11 N.W.L.R. Part 677 at 171; MOGAJI V. ODOFIN (1978) 4 S.C at 91.
In the instant case, there were four pleadings filed viz- the amended statement of claim, the amended statement of defence of 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants, the statement of Defence of 2nd & 4th Defendants, a reply to the Statement of Defence and where the parties called eleven witnesses, the learned trial Judge in his judgment merely stated thus:
“I have received the pieces of evidence on record and I will not be able to read all the evidence which I have received is on record. Having reviewed the evidence, I came to irresistible conclusion that the Plaintiff has proved his case with high degree of evidence satisfactorily in proof his case. I reject the defence of all the Defendants. I therefore give judgment in favour of the Plaintiff in the following terms…”
The learned trial Judge did not appraise, evaluate and review the evidence of both the Plaintiffs and the various Defendants. It is not enough for the lower court to just state that the evidence is on record but has reviewed it without stating what he reviewed and why he arrived at the irresistible conclusion that the “Respondents/Plaintiffs had proved their case with a high degree of evidence”. The court has a duty to review the evidence given by all the witnesses. The judgment of the trial court gave no reason for arriving at the conclusion that the Respondent made out his case and was entitled to judgment. See the cases of ADEBAYO V. SHOGO (2005) 7 NWLR Part 925 at 467 and OGUNYADE V. OSHUNKEYE (2007) 15 NWLR Part 1057 at 218. I agree with the submission of the learned Appellant’s Counsel that it is the duty of a trial court to consider the evidence of the parties in a case concerning every material issue.
A judgment must demonstrate in full a dispassionate consideration of all issues raised, canvassed and show the result of that exercise. However let me reiterate the view that there is no specific format prescribed for writing a judgment. It must meet some minimum standards. It must state briefly the relief’s claimed the relevant facts, arguments and findings of the judge. See the cases of OKULATE V. AWOSANYA (2000) 2 N.W.L.R. Part 646 page 530, UDENGWU V. UZUEGBU (2003) 13 N.W.L.R. Part 836 at 136, IBORI V. AGBI (2004) 6 N.W.L.R. Part 868 at 78, USIOBAIFO V. USIOBAFO (2005) 3 NWLR Part 913 at 665. The reasons for these findings need not be elaborate. See the cases of AMALA V. THE STATE (2004) 12 N.W.L.R part 888 at 520 and NWANKUDU V. IBETOR (2011) 2 N.W.L.R. Part 1231 page 209 at 228 paras D-E.
The judgment of the trial court in this case did not meet the minimum standard of a Judgment which settles the ‘res’ in controversy between the parties after a dispassionate consideration of the facts and issues canvassed before it.
From the nature of this case, being a land matter, the evaluation involves more than examination of oral and documentary evidence apart from the fact that exhibit PC which is the Land Purchase agreement dated 22/7/77 between Raji Ashamu (Mogaji and others) for Kongbari family and Alhaji Ganiyu Akande the Plaintiff who was given judgment at the lower court was not forwarded to this court. It also involves the assessment of the credibility of the witnesses who relied on traditional histories which the learned trial Judge who saw and watched the demeanor of the witnesses must have formed an opinion. The appellate court is not in a vantage position of assessing the credibility of the witnesses through their demeanor. The failure of the learned trial Judge to make evaluation of the evidence of the parties has occasioned miscarriage of justice as no one can tell how he arrived at his decision. See the case of CHIEF FAGUNWA V. CHIEF ADIBI (2004) 17 N.W.L.R. Part 903 at 544. The issue here goes far beyond the need to review their evidence on the record of appeal. The credibility and demeanor of the witnesses giving evidence of traditional histories are so fundamental to the entire proceedings.
An appellate court will not as a general rule interfere with the findings of a trial court except in certain circumstances. See AREGBESOLA V. OYINLOLA (2009) 14 NWLR part 1162 page 429 at 480 paras D-E.
Since there is no proper evaluation of how the Respondent made out his case and was entitled to judgment against the Appellant’s, the effect of the failure of the learned trial Judge is that the Judgment must be set aside because it has occasioned miscarriage of justice. See IROLO V. EBE EBE UKA (2002) 14 N.W.L.R. Part 786 at 195.
The case should be sent back to the High court for trial de novo where the ‘res’ in controversy between the parties will be dispassionately settled. Issue one is hereby resolved in favour of the Appellant.
Having resolved issue one in favour of the Appellant that the case should be sent back to the High Court for trial de novo, issue two therefore becomes academic. A court will not involve itself in a mere academic exercise. See OLALE V. EKMEHENDU (1989) 4 N.W.L.R. Part 115 page 326 at 344.
For the reasons given above, I find the appeal meritorious. Appeal is hereby allowed. The judgment of the trial Court suit no.1/101/1999 delivered on the 10th of November, 2004 is hereby set aside. The case is sent back to the High Court for trial de novo. The Hon. Chief Judge of Oyo state is to re-assign the case to another Judge. No order as to costs.
STANLEY SHENKO ALAGOA, J.C.A.: I read in advance the leading judgment of my brother Fasanmi (J.C.A.) just delivered and I agree that the appeal has merit and should be allowed. I allow same and abide by the orders contained in the lead judgment including order on costs.
JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, J.C.A.: I am in complete agreement with the judgment prepared by my learned brother, Fasanmi, J.C.A, a draft copy of which I had a preview.
The court below heard the evidence of the witnesses but shirked its responsibility to assess the evidence properly. Much of the evidence depended on the demeanour and credibility of the witnesses which the court below had the singular advantage of evaluating. It failed to discharge its primary responsibility.
All the court below had to do was to follow the guiding parameters in the evaluation of evidence laid down by the Supreme Court in Odofin and Others v. Mogaji and Others (1978) 1 LRN 212 at 213 thus:
“Therefore, in deciding whether a certain set of facts given in evidence by one party in a civil case before a Court in which both parties appear is preferable to another set of facts given in evidence by the other party, the trial judge, after a summary of all the facts, must put the two sets of facts on an imaginary scale, weigh one against the other, then decide upon the preponderance of credible evidence which weighs more, accept it in preference to the other, and then apply the appropriate law to it; if that law supports it bearing in mind the cause of action, he will then find for the plaintiff. If not, the plaintiff’s claim will be dismissed. In certain circumstances, however, the claim is either struck out or the plaintiff is non-suited. Incidentally, in deciding which evidence has more weight than the other, a trial judge sometimes seeks the aid of admissions made by one party to add more to the weight of the evidence adduced by the other party. This is precisely why the totality of the evidence must be considered and why a trial judge must weigh the conflicting evidence adduced by both parties and then draw his own conclusions.”
It is, accordingly, difficult to say what findings the court below would have made if it had considered the totality of the evidence given by both parties and had weighed the said evidence in the imaginary civil scale properly before arriving at a decision in the case.
In the above circumstances, an order of retrial before another Judge may meet the justice of the case – see Ezeoke and Others v. Nwagbo and Others (1988) 1 N.S.C.C. 414 at 424 – 425 thus:
“Of course it cannot be doubted that such an order (retrial) can be properly made upon proper grounds, such as when a judge misdirects himself as to the nature of a party’s case, or upon wrongful admission or rejection of material evidence, or a party has been taken by surprise, or on grounds of misbehavior of the judge; and when the court makes a wrong approach to the assessment of evidence, such as when it fails to resolve the conflicts in the evidence: see Onyema Oke and Ors. V. Amos Eke and Ors. (1982) 12 S.C. 218…” (My emphasis).
The appeal has merit. I would allow it and abide by the consequential orders contained in the judgment of my learned brother, Fasanmi, J.C.A.
Appearances
Folake Ajayi (Mrs.) holding S. N. Ajewole’s briefFor Appellant
AND
O. A. OlasopeFor Respondent
