MR. FELIX GBENGA AFOLAYAN v. ALHAJI Y. S. ARIYO & ANOR
(2014) LCN/7038(CA)
RATIO
EVIDENCE: PROPER CONSIDERATION AND EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE IN GRANTING RELIEFS BY THE TRIAL COURT
From the plethora of judicial decisions on the issue, it has become settled that the duty to evaluate evidence adduced in a case and to ascribe probative value thereto belong primarily to the trial court that has the exclusive advantage of seeing the witnesses, hearing their testimony and observing their demeanour. An appellate court that does not possess this advantage will not readily disturb the evaluation of evidence and findings of fact by the trial court, appellate court will only interfere where the trial court’s findings are perverse or based on misapprehension of facts. See Are vs. Ipaye (1990) 3 SC (Pt. II) 109; Iriri vs. Erhurhobara (1991) 3 SC 1; Anyanwu vs. Mbara (1992) 6 SCNJ 90; Ayanwale vs. Atanda (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt. 88) 22; Kisiedu vs. Dompreh (1935) 2 WACA 253; Fatoyinbo vs. Williams (1956) 1 FSC 37, Lawal vs. Dawodu (1972) 8 – 9 SC 55; Omomeji vs. Kolawole (2008) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1106) 180; Teriba vs. Adeyemo (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1211) 242; Olabanji vs. Omokewu (1992) 7 SCNJ 266. Where therefore the trial court has unquestionably carried out this duty of evaluation of evidence and has made the correct findings, the appellate could will not embark on fresh evaluation of the evidence or interfere with the findings just to substitute its own views for those of the trial court. See Board of Custom & Excise vs. Barau (1982) LPELR – 786 (SC). Where however the trial court has abdicated this role or has failed to properly utilize the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses, the appellate court will interfere and set aside the findings of the trial court in the interest of justice especially where the credibility of witnesses is not involved. See Shell BP Development Co. of Nigeria Ltd vs. His Highness Perecole (1978) 3 SC 183; Lion Building Ltd vs. M.M. Shodipe (1976) 12 SC 135; Okunzua vs. Amosu (1972) 7 SCNJ 243; Egonu vs. Egonu (1978) 11 – 12 SC (REPRINT) 82; Edjekpo vs. Osia (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt, 1037) 635.
Thus in matters of evaluation or reevaluation of evidence, the appellate court accords much weight to the findings of the trial court unless the findings are proved to be perverse.
In Ayorinde & Ors vs. Sogunro & Ors (2012) 5 – 7 M.J.S.C. (Pt.111) 1, the Supreme Court, per Rhodes-Vivour JSC said at page 27 that;
“Evaluation of evidence comes in two forms:
(a) Findings of fact based on the credibility of witnesses and
(b) Findings based on evaluation of evidence
In (a), an appeal court should be slow to differ from the trial judge, after all it was he that saw and heard the witnesses, he watched their demeanour and so his conclusions must be accorded some respect. But in (b), an appeal court is in as good a position as the trial court to evaluate the evidence.
In both (a) and (b) the conclusion of the trial judge should be accorded much weight except found to be perverse.”
The duty of the trial judge in deciding a civil case such as the instant one is to put the totality of the admissible, credible and conclusive evidence adduced by the parties on an imaginary scale, weigh them one with the other and find which one weighs more not by number of witnesses but by the quality or probative value of the evidence of the witnesses. The court then applies the law before finding in favour of the plaintiff or the defendant. See Mogaji vs. Odofin (1978) 4 SC 91; Fagbenro vs. Arobadi (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 310) 1575; Kaydee Ventures Ltd vs. Hon. Minister of FCT (2010) 1 – 2 MJSC 129. Per Isaiah Olufemi Akeju, J.C.A
LAND LAW: REQUIREMENTS FOR VALID SALE OF LAND UNDER ENGLISH LAW AND CUSTOMARY LAW
In Folarin vs. Durojaiye (1988) LPELR – 1288 (sc) it was held by the Supreme Court that in order to transfer title under English Law by purchase, there must be a valid sale payment of money accompanied by acknowledgment of receipt and execution of conveyance in favour of the purchaser. Also in Okonkwo vs. Dakolo (1999) LPELR 2438 (sc) it was held per Karibi-Whyte JSC that: “The incidents of sale under customary law are well known and have also been discussed in many case: see Ogunbanbi vs. Abowaba 13 WACA 222, Erinosho vs. Owokoniran (1965) NMLR 479; Cole vs. Folarin (1956) 1 FSC 66. Customary Law requires that in addition to paying the purchase price and obtaining a purchase receipt, the purchase or sale transaction should be concluded in the presence of witnesses who also “witnessed” the actual handing over of or symbolic delivery of the land to the purchaser.” It therefore becomes clear in law that payment of purchase price is a vital and essential ingredient of valid transfer of title to land by purchase either under English Law or Customary Law. In this case where the appellant failed to pay purchase price, there was no valid transfer of the disputed land to him. Per Isaiah Olufemi Akeju, J.C.A
